Radio number for the Cartesian product of a tree and a complete

graph
∗a
Payal Vasoya and Devsi Bantva†‡b
a
Gujarat Technogical University, Ahmedabad - 382 424, Gujarat, India
b
Lukhdhirji Engineering College, Morvi 363 642, Gujarat, India
arXiv:2404.08400v1 [math.CO] 12 Apr 2024

Abstract
A radio labelling of a graph G is a mapping f : V (G) → {0, 1, 2, . . .} such that |f (u) −
f (v)| ≥ diam(G) + 1 − d(u, v) for every pair of distinct vertices u, v of G, where diam(G)
is the diameter of G and d(u, v) is the distance between u and v in G. The radio number
rn(G) of G is the smallest integer k such that G admits a radio labelling f with max{f (v) :
v ∈ V (G)} = k. In this paper, we give a lower bound for the radio number of the Cartesian
product of a tree and a complete graph and give two necessary and sufficient conditions to
achieve the lower bound. We also give three sufficient conditions to achieve the lower bound.
We determine the radio number for the Cartesian product of a level-wise regular trees and a
complete graph which attains the lower bound. The radio number for the Cartesian product
of a path and a complete graph derived in [11] can be obtained using our results in a short
way.
Keywords: Radio labelling, radio number, Cartesian product, tree, Complete graph.
AMS Subject Classification (2010): 05C78, 05C15, 05C12.

1 Introduction
The channel assignment problem is the problem of assigning a channel to each transmitter in
a radio network such that a set of constraints is satisfied and the span is minimized. The
constraints for assigning channels to transmitters are usually determined by the geographic
location of the transmitters; closer the location, the stronger the interference might occur. In
order to avoid stronger interference, the larger frequency gap between two assigned frequencies
must be required. In [10], Hale designed the optimal labelling problem for graphs to deal with this
channel assignment problem. In this model, the transmitters are represented by the vertices of
a graph, and two vertices are adjacent if the corresponding transmitters are close to each other.
Initially, only two levels of interference, namely avoidable and unavoidable, were considered
which inspired Griggs and Yeh [8] to introduce the following concept: An L(2, 1)-labelling of a
graph G is a function f : V (G) → {0, 1, 2, . . .} such that |f (u) − f (v)| ≥ 2 if d(u, v) = 1 and
|f (u) − f (v)| ≥ 1 if d(u, v) = 2. The span of f is defined as max{|f (u) − f (v)| : u, v ∈ V (G)},
and the λ-number (or the λ2,1 -number) of G is the minimum span of an L(2, 1)-labelling of G.
The L(2, 1)-labelling problem has been studied extensively in the past more than two decades,
as one can find in the survey articles [5, 19].
∗
E-mail:[email protected] (Payal Vasoya)
†
E-mail:[email protected] (Devsi Bantva)
‡
Corresponding author.

1
2 Payal Vasoya and Devsi Bantva

Denote the diameter of a graph G by diam(G) (the diameter of a graph G is diam(G) =

max{d(u, v) : u, v ∈ V (G)}). In [6, 7], Chartrand et al. introduced the concept of the radio
labelling problem by extending the condition on distance in L(2, 1)-labelling from two to the
maximum possible distance in a graph - the diameter of a graph.

Definition 1.1. A radio labelling of a graph G is a mapping f : V (G) → {0, 1, 2, . . .} such that
the following hold for every pair of distinct vertices u, v of G,

|f (u) − f (v)| ≥ diam(G) + 1 − d(u, v). (1)

The integer f (u) is called the label of u under f , and the span of f is defined as span(f ) =
max{|f (u) − f (v)| : u, v ∈ V (G)}. The radio number of G is defined as

rn(G) = min span(f )

f

with minimum taken over all radio labellings f of G. A radio labelling f of G is called optimal
if span(f ) = rn(G).

Observe that a radio labelling problem is a min-max type optimization problem. Without
loss of generality we may always assume that any radio labelling assigns 0 to some vertex then
the span of a radio labelling is equal to the maximum label used. Since d(u, v) ≤ diam(G), any
radio labelling always assigns different labels to distinct vertices. Therefore, a radio labelling f
of graph G with order m induces the linear order

~f : a0 , a1 , . . . , am−1
V (2)

of the vertices of G such that

0 = f (a0 ) < f (a1 ) < . . . < f (am−1 ) = span(f ). (3)

A linear order a0 , a1 , . . . , am−1 of V (T ) is called optimal linear order if it induced by some

optimal radio labelling f of T .
The determining radio number of graphs is a tough and challenging task. The radio number
is known only for very few graphs and the much attention has been paid to special families of
graphs. It turns out that even for some special graph families the problem may be difficult. For
example, the radio number of paths was determined by Liu and Zhu in [17], and even for this
basic graph family the problem is nontrivial. In [15, 16], Liu and Xie determine the radio number
for the square graph of paths and cycles. In [4], Benson et al. determined the radio number of all
graphs of order n ≥ 2 and diameter n − 2. In [13], Liu gave a lower bound for the radio number
of trees and a necessary and sufficient condition for this bound to be achieved. The author also
presented a special class of trees, namely spiders, achieving this lower bound. In [12], Li et al.
determined the radio number of complete m-ary trees of height k, for k ≥ 1, m ≥ 2. In [9],
Halász and Tuza gave a lower bound for the radio number of level-wise regular trees and proved
further that this bound is tight when all the internal vertices have degree more than three. In
[3], Bantva et al. gave a necessary and sufficient condition for the lower bound given in [13] to
be tight along with two sufficient conditions for achieving this lower bound. Using these results,
they also determined the radio number of three families of trees in [3]. In [1], Bantva determined
the radio number of some trees obtained by applying a graph operation on given trees. In [14],
 Radio number for the Cartesian product of a tree and a complete graph 3

Liu et al. improved the lower bound for the radio number of trees. Recently, in [2], Bantva and
Liu gave a lower bound for the radio number of block graphs and, three necessary and sufficient
conditions to achieve the lower bound. The authors gave three other sufficient conditions to
achieve the lower bound and also discuss the radio number of line graphs of trees and block
graphs in [2]. Using these results, the authors determine the radio number of extended star of
blocks and level-wise regular block graphs in [2].
In this paper, we give a lower bound for the radio number of the Cartesian product of a
path and a complete graph (Theorem 3.1). We also give two necessary and sufficient conditions
(Theorems 3.2 and 3.3) and three other sufficient conditions (Theorem 3.4) to achieve the lower
bound. Using these results, we determine the radio number of the Cartesian product of a level-
wise regular tree and a complete graph. The radio number for the Cartesian product of a path
and a complete graph given in [11] can be obtained using our results in a short way.

2 Preliminaries
We follow [18] for standard graph-theoretic terms and notations. In a graph G, the neighbour-
hood of any v ∈ V (G) is NG (v) = {u : u is adjacent to v}. The distance between two vertices u
and v in G, denoted by dG (u, v), is the length of the shortest path joining u and v in G. The
diameter of a graph G, denoted by diam(G), is diam(G) = max{dG (u, v) : u, v ∈ V (G)}. We
drop the suffix in above defined terms when G is clear in the context. A complete graph Kn
is a graph on n vertices in which every two vertices are adjacent. A tree is a connected acyclic
graph. We fix V (T ) = {u0 , u1 , . . . , um−1 } for tree T of order m and V (Kn ) = {v0 , v1 , . . . , vn−1 }
throughout the paper. A vertex v ∈ V (T ) is an internal vertex of T if it has degree greater than
one and is a leaf otherwise. In [3, 13], the weight of T from v ∈ V (T ) is defined as
X
wT (v) = d(u, v)
u∈V (T )

and the weight of T is defined as

w(T ) = min{wT (v) : v ∈ V (T )}.

A vertex v ∈ V (T ) is a weight center [3, 13] of T if wT (v) = w(T ). Denote by W (T ) the set of
weight centers of T . In [13], the following is proved about W (T ).

Lemma 2.1. [13] If r is a weight center of a tree T . Then each component of T − r contains
at most |V (T )|/2 vertices.

Lemma 2.2. [13] Every tree T has one or two weight centers, and T has two weight centers,
say, W (T ) = {r, r ′ } if and only if rr ′ is an edge of T and T − rr ′ consists of two equal sized
components.

A vertex u is called [3, 13] an ancestor of a vertex v, or v is a descendent of u, if u is on

the unique path joining a weight center and v. Let u ∈ V (T ) \ W (T ) be a vertex adjacent to
a weight center x. The subtree of T induced by u and all its descendants is called the branch
of T at u. Two vertices u, v of T are said to be in different branches if the path between them
consists only one weight center and in opposite branches if the path joining them consists two
weight centers. We view a tree T rooted at its weight center W (T ): if W (T ) = {r}, then T is
4 Payal Vasoya and Devsi Bantva

rooted at r; if W (T ) = {r, r ′ }, then T is rooted at r and r ′ in the sense that both r and r ′ are
at level 0. In either case, for each u ∈ V (T ), define

L(u) = min{d(u, x) : x ∈ W (T )}

to indicate the level of u in T , and define

X
L(T ) = L(u)
u∈V (T )

the total level of T . For any u, v ∈ V (T ), define

φ(u, v) = max{L(x) : x is a common ancestor of u and v},

(
1, if |W (T )| = 2 and the (u, v)-path in T contains both weight centers,
δ(u, v) =
0, otherwise.

Lemma 2.3 ([3, Lemma 2.1]). Let T be a tree with diameter d ≥ 2. Then for any u, v ∈ V (T )
the following hold:

(a) φ(u, v) ≥ 0;

(b) φ(u, v) = 0 if and only if u and v are in different or opposite branches;

(c) δ(u, v) = 1 if and only if T has two weight centers and u and v are in opposite branches;

(d) the distance d(u, v) in T between u and v can be expressed as

d(u, v) = L(u) + L(v) − 2φ(u, v) + δ(u, v). (4)

Define (
1, if |W (T )| = 1,
ε(T ) =
0, if |W (T )| = 2.

Let G = (V (G), E(G)) and H = (V (H), E(H)) be two graphs. The Cartesian product of G
and H is the graph G✷H with V (G✷H) = V (G) × V (H) and two vertices (a, b) and (c, d) are
adjacent if a = c and (b, d) ∈ E(H) or b = d and (a, c) ∈ E(G). It is clear from the definition
that dG✷H ((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) = dG (x1 , x2 ) + dH (y1 , y2 ).

Observation 2.4. For a tree T of order m (m ≥ 2) and a complete graph Kn ,

(a) |V (T ✷Kn )| = mn,

(b) diam(T ✷Kn ) = diam(T ) + 1.

Let V~ = (w0 , w1 , . . . , wmn−1 ) be an ordering of V (T ✷Kn ), where |T | = m. Then note that

each wt (0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 1) is an ordered pair (uit , vjt ) with uit ∈ V (T ) and vjt ∈ V (Kn ). Hence
each vertex ui , i = 0, 1, . . . , m − 1 appear n times and each vertex vj , j = 0, 1, . . . , n − 1 appear
m times in T ✷Kn . For wa = (uia , vja ), wb = (uib , vjb ) ∈ V (T ✷Kn ) (0 ≤ a, b ≤ mn − 1), vja and
vjb are called distinct if ja 6= jb . For any wa = (uia , vja ), wb = (uib , vjb ) ∈ V (T ✷Kn ) (0 ≤ a, b ≤
mn − 1), the distance between wa and wb is given by

d(wa , wb ) = L(uia ) + L(uib ) + δ(uia , uib ) − 2φ(uia , uib ) + d(vja , vjb ) (5)
 Radio number for the Cartesian product of a tree and a complete graph 5

3 A tight lower bound for rn(T ✷Kn )

In this section, we continue to use terms and notations defined in the previous section. We
first give a lower bound for the radio number of the Cartesian product of a tree and a complete
graph. Next we give two necessary and sufficient conditions and three other sufficient conditions
to achieve the lower bound.

Theorem 3.1. Let T be a tree of order m and diameter d ≥ 2. Denote ε = ε(T ). Then

rn(T ✷Kn ) ≥ (mn − 1)(d + ε) − 2nL(T ). (6)

Proof. It is enough to prove that any radio labelling of T ✷Kn has no span less than that the
right-hand side of (6). Suppose f be any radio labelling of T ✷Kn which induces an ordering V ~f =
(w0 , w1 , . . . , wmn−1 ) such that 0 = f (w0 ) < f (w1 ) < . . . < f (wmn−1 ). Denote diam(T ✷Kn ) =
d′ . By the definition of radio labelling, f (wt+1 )− f (wt ) ≥ d′ + 1− d(wt , wt+1 ) for 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 2.
Since d′ = d + 1 by Observation 2.4, we have f (wt+1 ) − f (wt ) ≥ d + 2 − d(wt , wt+1 ) for 0 ≤ t ≤
mn − 2. Summing up these mn − 1 inequalities, we obtain
mn−2
X
span(f ) = f (wmn−1 ) ≥ (mn − 1)(d + 2) − d(wt , wt+1 ). (7)
t=0

Case-1: |W (T )| = 1. In this case, δ(uit , uit+1 ) = 0 by the definition of δ, φ(uit , uit+1 ) ≥ 0

and 0 ≤ d(vjt , vjt+1 ) ≤ 1 for all 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 2. Hence, using (5), we obtain

mn−2
X mn−2
X
d(wt , wt+1 ) = [L(uit ) + L(uit+1 ) − 2φ(uit , uit+1 ) + d(vjt , vjt+1 )]
t=0 t=0
mn−2
X
≤ [L(uit ) + L(uit+1 ) + d(vjt , vjt+1 )]
t=0
m−1
X
≤ 2n L(ui ) + (mn − 1) − L(ui0 ) − L(uimn−1 )
i=0
≤ 2nL(T ) + mn − 1.

Substituting this in (7), we have span(f ) ≥ (mn − 1)(d + 1) − 2nL(T ).

Case-2: |W (T )| = 2. In this case, 0 ≤ δ(uit , uit+1 ) ≤ 1, φ(uit , uit+1 ) ≥ 0 and 0 ≤
d(vjt , vjt+1 ) ≤ 1 for all 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 2. Hence, using (5), we obtain

mn−2
X mn−2
X
d(wt , wt+1 ) = [L(uit ) + L(uit+1 ) + δ(uit , uit+1 ) − 2φ(uit , uit+1 )
t=0 t=0
+d(vjt , vjt+1 )]
mn−2
X
≤ [L(uit ) + L(uit+1 ) + 1 + d(vjt , vjt+1 )]
t=0
m−1
X
≤ 2n L(ui ) + (mn − 1) + (mn − 1) − L(ui0 ) − L(uimn−1 )
i=0
≤ 2nL(T ) + 2(mn − 1).

Substituting this in (7), we have span(f ) ≥ (mn − 1)d − 2nL(T ).

6 Payal Vasoya and Devsi Bantva

Theorem 3.2. Let T be a tree of order m and diameter d ≥ 2. Denote ε = ε(T ). Then

rn(T ✷Kn ) = (mn − 1)(d + ε − 2nL(T ) (8)

if and only if there exist an ordering w0 , w1 , . . . , wmn−1 of V (T ✷Kn ) such that the following
hold:

(a) L(ui0 ) = L(uimn−1 ) = 0,

(b) vjt and vjt+1 are distinct for all 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 2,

(c) For wa = (uia , vja ), wb = (uib , vjb ) (0 ≤ a < b ≤ mn − 1), the distance between any two
vertices uia and uib satisfies

b−1
X
d(uia , uib ) ≥ [L(uit ) + L(uit+1 ) − (d + ε)] + (d + 1). (9)
t=a

Moreover, under these conditions (a)-(c), the mapping f defined by

f (w0 ) = 0 (10)

f (wt+1 ) = f (wt ) + d + ε − L(uit ) − L(uit+1 ), 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 2 (11)

is an optimal radio labelling of T ✷Kn .

Proof. Necessity: Suppose that (8) holds. Note that (8) holds if equality hold in (1) and every-
where in the proof of Theorem 3.1. Again observe that the equality holds everywhere in the proof
of Theorem 3.1 then an ordering w0 , w1 , . . . , wmn−1 of V (T ✷Kn ) induced by f satisfies the fol-
lowings: (1) L(ui0 ) = L(uimn−1 ) = 0, (2) uit and uit+1 are in different branches when |W (T )| = 1
and in opposite branches when |W (T )| = 2 for all 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 2, (3) vjt and vjt+1 are distinct
for all 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 2. Hence in this case the definition of radio labelling f can be written as
f (w0 ) = 0 and f (wt+1 ) = f (wt ) + d′ + ε − L(uit ) − L(uit+1 ) − 1 = f (wt ) + d + ε − L(uit ) − L(uit+1 )
for 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 2, where d′ = diam(T ✷Kn ). Summing this last equality for wa to wb (0 ≤ a <
b ≤ mn − 1), we obtain

b−1
X
f (wb ) − f (wa ) = [d + ε − L(uit ) − L(uit+1 )]
t=a

Since f is a radio labelling of T ✷Kn , we have f (wb )−f (wa ) ≥ d′ +1−d(wa , wb ) = d+2−d(wa , wb ).
Also note that d(wa , wb ) = d(uia , uib ) + 1 by (5). Substituting these in the above equation, we
obtain
b−1
X
d(uia , uib ) ≥ [L(uit ) + L(uit+1 ) − (d + ε)] + (d + 1).
t=a

Sufficiency: Suppose there exist an ordering (w0 , w1 , . . ., wmn−1 ) of V (T ✷Kn ) satisfies

the conditions (a)-(c) and f is defined by (10) and (11). Note that it is enough to prove
that f is a radio labelling of T ✷Kn and the span of f is the right-hand side of (8). Denote
 Radio number for the Cartesian product of a tree and a complete graph 7

diam(T ✷Kn ) = d′ . Let wa and wb (0 ≤ a < b ≤ mn − 1) be two arbitrary vertices.

b−1
X
f (wb ) − f (wa ) = (f (wt+1 ) − f (wt ))
t=a
b−1
X
= (d + ε − L(uit ) − L(uit+1 ))
t=a
= d + 1 − d(uia , uib )
= d + 2 − (d(uia , uib ) + 1)
= d′ + 1 − d(wa , wb ).

The span of f is

span(f ) = f (wmn−1 ) − f (w0 )

mn−2
X
= (f (wt+1 ) − f (wt ))
t=0
mn−2
X
= (d + ε − L(uit ) − L(uit+1 ))
t=0
mn−2
X
= (mn − 1)(d + ε) − 2 L(uit ) + L(ui0 ) + L(uimn−1 )
t=0
= (mn − 1)(d + ε) − 2nL(T ).

Theorem 3.3. Let T be a tree of order m and diameter d ≥ 2. Denote ε = ε(T ). Then

rn(T ✷Kn ) = (mn − 1)(d + ε) − 2nL(T ) (12)

if and only if there exist an ordering w0 , w1 , . . . , wmn−1 with wt = (uit , vjt ), 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 1 of

V (T ✷Kn ) such that the following all hold:

(a) L(ui0 ) = L(uimn−1 ) = 0,

(b) vjt and vjt+1 are distinct for 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 2,

(c) uit and uit+1 are in different branches when |W (T )| = 1 and in opposite branches when
|W (T )| = 2 for 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 2,

(d) L(uit ) ≤ (d + 1)/2 when |W (T )| = 1 and L(uit ) ≤ (d − 1)/2 when |W (T )| = 2 for all
0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 1;

(e) For any wa = (uia , vja ), wb = (uib , vjb ) (0 ≤ a < b ≤ mn − 1) such that uia and uib are in
the same branch of T then uia and uib satisfies

  b−1  
b−a−1 X 1−ε
φ(uia , uib ) ≤ (d + ε) − L(uit ) − . (13)
2 2
t=a+1
8 Payal Vasoya and Devsi Bantva

Proof. Necessity: Suppose (12) holds. Then there exist an ordering (w0 , w1 , . . ., wmn−1 ) of
T ✷Kn such that the conditions (a)-(c) of Theorem 3.2 holds. Hence the conditions (a) and (b)
satisfies. Taking a = t and b = t + 1 in (9), we obtain d(wt , wt+1 ) = d(uit , uit+1 ) + d(vjt , vjt+1 ) =
L(uit ) + L(uit+1 ) + 1 − ε + 1. Hence we have d(uit , uit+1 ) = L(uit ) + L(uit+1 ) + 1 − ε for all
0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 2 as 0 ≤ d(uit , uit+1 ) ≤ L(uit ) + L(uit+1 ) + 1 − ε and 0 ≤ d(vjt , vjt+1 ) ≤ 1.
Therefore, by Lemma 2.3, uit and uit+1 are in different branches when |W (T )| = 1 and in
opposite branches when |W (T )| = 2 for all 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 2. Hence the condition (c) satisfies.
Since L(ui0 ) = L(uimn−1 ) = 0, it is clear that L(uit ) < (d + 1)/2 for t = 0, mn − 1. For
1 ≤ t ≤ mn − 2, consider uit−1 and uit+1 in (9) and using (5), we obtain

2L(uit ) ≤ (d + ε) − (1 − ε) + δ(uit−1 , uit+1 ) − 2φ(uit−1 , uit+1 ).

In above equation, observe that when |W (T )| = 1 then δ(uit−1 , uit+1 ) = 0 by the definition of δ
and when |W (T )| = 2 then uit−1 and uit+1 are in different or in the same branch of T and hence
δ(uit−1 , uit+1 ) = 0. Thus we have,

2L(uit ) ≤ d + 2ε − 1.

Hence, the condition (d) satisfies. To prove (e), let wa = (uia , vja ) and wb = (uib , vjb )(0 ≤ a <
b ≤ mn − 1) be such that uia and uib are in the same branch of T . Then δ(uia , uib ) = 0. Using
(5) in (9), the (13) can be obtain easily from (9).
Sufficiency: Suppose there exist an ordering (w0 , w1 , . . . , wmn−1 ) of V (T ✷Kn ) such that
conditions (a)-(e) holds. To prove (12) holds, we show that an ordering w0 , w1 , . . . , wmn−1
satisfies the condition (a)-(c) of Theorem 3.2. Since the conditions (a) and (b) are identical with
the conditions (a) and (b) of Theorem 3.2, we need to prove the condition (9) only. Denote the
right-hand side of (9) by Sa,b . Let wa = (uia , vja ), wb = (uib , vjb ) (0 ≤ a < b ≤ mn − 1) be any
two vertices. If uia and uib are in opposite branches then d(uia , uib ) = L(uia )+L(uib )+1. Hence,
Sa,b = L(uia )+ L(uib )+ 2 b−1
P
t=a+1 L(uit )− (b− a)d+ d+ 1 ≤ L(uia )+ L(uib )+ 1+ 2(b− a− 1)((d −
1)/2) − (b − a − 1)d = L(uia ) + L(uib ) + 1 − (b − a − 1) ≤ L(uia ) + L(uib ) + 1 = d(uia , uib ). If uia
and uib are in different branches then d(uia , uib ) = L(uia ) + L(uib ) and Sa,b = L(uia ) + L(uib ) +
2 b−1
P
t=a+1 L(uit ) − (b − a − 1)(d + ε) + (1 − ε). If |W (T )| = 1 then note that L(uit ) ≤ (d + 1)/2 for
all 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 1 and hence Sa,b ≤ L(uia ) + L(uib ) + 2(b − a − 1)((d + 1)/2) − (b − a − 1)(d + 1) =
L(uia ) + L(uib ) = d(uia , uib ). If |W (T )| = 2 then note that b − a − 1 ≥ 1 and L(uit ) ≤ (d − 1)/2
for all 0 ≤ t ≤ mn−1 and hence Sa,b ≤ L(uia )+L(uib )+2(b−a−1)((d−1)/2)−(b−a−1)d+1 =
L(uia ) + L(uib ) + 1 − (b − a − a) ≤ L(uia ) + L(uib ) = d(uia , uib ). If uia and uib are in the same
branch then (9) can be obtain easily using (13) which complete the proof.

Theorem 3.4. Let T be a tree of order m and diameter d ≥ 2. Denote ε = ε(T ). Then

rn(T ✷Kn ) = (mn − 1)(d + ε) − 2nL(T ) (14)

if there exist an ordering w0 , w1 , . . . , wmn−1 of V (T ✷Kn ) such that

(a) L(ui0 ) = L(uimn−1 ) = 0,

(b) vjt and vjt+1 are distinct for all 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 2,

(c) uit and uit+1 are in different branches when |W (T )| = 1 and in opposite branches when
|W (T )| = 2 for all 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 2,
 Radio number for the Cartesian product of a tree and a complete graph 9

and one of the following holds:

(d) min{d(uit , uit+1 ), d(uit+1 , uit+2 )} ≤ (d + 1 − ε)/2 for all 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 3,

(e) d(uit , uit+1 ) ≤ (d + 1 + ε)/2 for all 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 2,

(f) For all 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 1, L(uit ) ≤ (d + 1)/2 when |W (T )| = 1 and L(uit ) ≤ (d − 1)/2 when
|W (T )| = 2 and, if wa = (uia , vja ) and wb = (uib , vjb )(0 ≤ a < b ≤ mn − 1) such that uia
and uib are in the same branch of T then b − a ≥ d.

Proof. We show that if (a)-(c) and one of the (d)-(f) holds for an ordering w0 , w1 , . . . , wmn−1
such that wt = (uit , vjt ), 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 1 then (a)-(e) of Theorem 3.3 satisfies. Since the
conditions (a)-(c) are identical in both Theorems 3.3 and 3.4, we need to verify the conditions
(d) and (e) of Theorem 3.3 only. Denote the right-hand side of (13) by Pa,b . We consider the
following two cases.
Case-1: |W (T )| = 1. In this case, recall that ε = 1 and δ(uit , uit+1 ) = 0 for all 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 2
by the definition of δ.
Subcase-1.1: Suppose (a)-(d) holds. It is clear that L(ui0 ) = L(uimn−1 ) = 0 ≤ (d + 1)/2
and for 1 ≤ t ≤ mn − 2, L(uit ) ≤ min{d(uit , uit+1 ), d(uit+1 , uit+2 )} ≤ d/2 < (d + 1)/2. Let
wa = (uia , vja ) and wb = (uib , vjb ), 0 ≤ a < b ≤ mn − 1 be two arbitrary vertices such that uia
and uib are in the same branch of T . If b − a ≥ 4 then Pa,b ≥ 3(d + 1)/2 − d/2 − (d + 1)/2 =
d/2 + 1 ≥ φ(uia , uib ). Assume b − a = 3. If L(uia+1 ) + L(uia+2 ) ≤ d/2 then Pa,b ≥ (d + 1) − d/2 =
d/2 + 1 ≥ φ(uia , uib ). If L(uia+1 ) + L(uia+2 ) > d/2 then L(uia+2 ) + L(uia+3 ) ≤ d/2 and hence
L(uia+2 ) ≤ d/2−L(uia+3 ). Therefore, Pa,b ≥ d+1−L(uia+1 )−L(uia+2 ) ≥ d+1−(d+1)/2−d/2+
L(uia+3 ) = L(uia+3 ) + 1/2 ≥ φ(uia , uib ). Assume b − a = 2 then either L(uia ) + L(uia+1 ) ≤ d/2
or L(uia+1 ) + L(uia+2 ) ≤ d/2. Without loss of generality assume that L(uia ) + L(uia+1 ) ≤ d/2
then L(uia+1 ) ≤ d/2 − L(uia ). Hence, Pa,b = (d + 1)/2 − L(uia+1 ) ≥ (d + 1)/2 − d/2 + L(uia ) =
L(uia ) + (1/2) ≥ φ(uia , uib ).
Subcase-1.2: Suppose (a)-(c) and (e) holds. Note that L(ui0 ) = L(uimn−1 ) = 0 ≤ (d + 1)/2.
Since L(uit ) ≥ 1 and L(uit ) + L(uit+1 ) = d(uit , uit+1 ) ≤ (d + 2)/2 for 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 1, we obtain
L(uit ) ≤ (d + 1)/2 for all 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 1.
Let wa = (uia , vja ) and wb = (uib , vjb ), 0 ≤ a < b ≤ mn − 1 be two arbitrary vertices such
that uia and uib are in the same branch of T . If b−a ≥ 3 then Pa,b ≥ d+1−L(uia+1 )−L(uia+2 ) ≥
d + 1 − (d + 2)/2 = d/2 ≥ φ(uia , uib ). Assume b − a = 2. Note that L(uia ) + L(uia+1 ) ≤ (d + 2)/2
and hence L(uia+1 ) ≤ (d + 2)/2 − L(uia ). Therefore, Pa,b = (d + 1)/2 − L(uia+1 ) ≥ (d + 1)/2 −
((d + 2)/2 − L(uia )) = L(uia ) − (1/2) ≥ φ(uia , uib ).
Subcase-1.3: Suppose (a)-(c) and (f) holds. Assume d is even then L(uit ) ≤ d/2 for all
0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 1 and hence Pi,j ≥ ((b − a − 1)/2)(d + 1) − (b − a − 1)(d/2) ≥ (b − a − 1)/2 ≥
(d − 1)/2 ≥ φ(uia , uib ). Assume d is odd then note that only for one vertex uiq , L(uiq ) =
(d + 1)/2 from consecutive b − a vertices and for all other vertices uit , L(uit ) ≤ d/2. Hence,
Pa,b ≥ ((b− a− 1)/2)(d+ 1)− (b− a− 2)(d/2) − (d + 1)/2 ≥ (b− a− 2)/2 ≥ (d− 2)/2 ≥ φ(uia , uib ).
Case-2: |W (T )| = 2. In this case, recall that ε = 0 and δ(uit , uit+1 ) = 1 for all 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 1
by the definition of the ordering w0 , w1 , . . . , wmn−1 of V (T ✷Kn ).
Subcase-2.1: Suppose (a)-(d) holds. It is clear that L(ui0 ) = L(uimn−1 ) = 0 ≤ (d − 1)/2 and
for 1 ≤ t ≤ mn − 2, L(uit ) ≤ min{d(uit−1 , uit ), d(uit , uit+1 )} − 1 ≤ (d + 1)/2 − 1 = (d − 1)/2.
Let wa = (uia , vja ) and wb = (uib , vjb ), 0 ≤ a < b ≤ mn − 1 be two arbitrary vertices such
10 Payal Vasoya and Devsi Bantva

that uia and uib are in the same branch of T . If b − a ≥ 4 then Pa,b ≥ 3d/2 − (d − 1) −
1/2 = (d + 1)/2 ≥ φ(uia , uib ). Assume b − a = 3. If L(uia+1 ) + L(uia+2 ) ≤ (d − 1)/2 then
Pa,b ≥ d − (d − 1)/2 − 1/2 = d/2 ≥ φ(uia , uib ). If L(uia+1 ) + L(uia+2 ) > (d − 1)/2 then
L(uia ) + L(uia+1 ) ≤ (d − 1)/2 and hence L(uia+1 ) ≤ (d − 1)/2 − L(uia ). Therefore, Pa,b ≥
d − ((d − 1)/2 − L(uia )) − (d − 1)/2 − 1/2 = L(uia ) + 1/2 ≥ φ(uia , uib ). Assume b − a = 2
then either L(uia ) + L(uia+1 ) ≤ (d − 1)/2 or L(uia+1 ) + L(uia+2 ) ≤ (d − 1)/2. Without loss of
generality, assume that L(uia+1 ) + L(uia+2 ) ≤ (d − 1)/2 then L(uia+1 ) ≤ (d − 1)/2 − L(uia+2 ).
Hence, Pa,b = d/2 − L(uia+1 ) − 1/2 ≥ d/2 − ((d − 1)/2 − L(ia+2 )) − 1/2 = L(uia+2 ) ≥ φ(uia , uib ).
Subcase-2.2: Suppose (a)-(c) and (e) holds. Note that L(ui0 ) = L(uimn−1 ) = 0 ≤ (d − 1)/2.
Since L(uit ) ≥ 1 and L(uit ) + L(uit+1 ) = d(uit , uit+1 ) − 1 ≤ (d + 1)/2 − 1 = (d − 1)/2 for
0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 1, we obtain L(uit ) ≤ (d − 1)/2 for all 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 1.
Let wa = (uia , vja ) and wb = (uib , vjb ), 0 ≤ a < b ≤ mn − 1 be two arbitrary vertices
such that uia and uib are in the same branch of T . If b − a ≥ 3 then Pa,b ≥ d − L(uia+1 ) −
L(uia+2 ) − 1/2 ≥ d − (d − 1)/2 − 1/2 = d/2 ≥ φ(uia , uib ). Assume that b − a = 2. Then
note that L(uia ) + L(uia+1 ) ≤ (d − 1)/2 and hence L(uia ) ≤ (d − 1)/2 − L(uia+1 ). Hence,
Pa,b ≥ d/2 − L(uit ) − (1/2) ≥ d/2 − [(d − 1)/2 − L(uia+1 )] − (1/2) = L(uia+1 ) ≥ φ(uia , uib ).
Subcase-2.3: Suppose (a)-(c) and (f) holds. Assume d is even then L(uit ) ≤ (d − 2)/2
for all 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 1 and hence Pa,b ≥ ((b − a − 1)/2)d − (b − a − 1)((d − 2)/2) − 1/2 =
b − a − (3/2) ≥ d − (3/2) ≥ φ(uia , uib ). Assume d is odd then note that only for one vertex uiq ,
L(uiq ) ≤ (d−1)/2 from b−a consecutive vertices and for all other vertices uit , L(uit ) ≤ (d−3)/2.
Hence, Pa,b ≥ ((b − a − 1)/2)d − (b − a − 2)((d − 3)/2) − (d − 1)/2 − (1/2) = 3(b − a − 2)/2 ≥
3(d − 2)/2 ≥ φ(uia , uib ).

4 Radio number for the Cartesian product of level-wise regular tree and
complete graph

In this section, using the results of Section 3, we determine the radio number for the Cartesian
product of a level-wise regular tree and a complete graph.
It is well known that the center of tree T consists of one vertex r or two adjacent vertices r, r ′
depending on diam(T ) is even or odd. We view a tree T rooted at r or at both r, r ′ respectively.
Halász and Tuza [9] defined a level-wise regular tree to be a tree T in which all vertices at
distance i from root r or {r, r ′ } have the same degree, say di for 0 ≤ i ≤ h, where h (the
largest distance from a vertex to the root) is the height of tree T . Note that a level-wise regular
tree is determined by its center(s) and (d0 , d1 , . . . , dh−1 ). Denote the level-wise regular tree by
T z = Tdz0 ,d1 ,...,dh−1 , where z denotes the number of roots of level-wise regular tree. A star K1,q is
a tree consisting of q leaves and another vertex joined to all leaves by edges. A double star Dq
is a graph obtained by joining the center vertices of two copies of star graph K1,q by an edge.
A banana tree Bq,k is a graph constructed by connecting a single leaf from q distinct copies of
a star K1,k with a single vertex that is distinct from all the vertices of star graphs. Note that a
star K1,q , double star Dq and a banana tree Bq,k are level-wise regular trees Tq1 , Tq+1 2 1
and Tq,2,k ,
respectively.

Theorem 4.1. Let h ≥ 1 and di , n ≥ 3 for 0 ≤ i ≤ h − 1 be any integers. Denote ε = ε(T z ).

 Radio number for the Cartesian product of a tree and a complete graph 11

Then rn(T z ✷Kn )

    
 h−1
X Y



  (2h − 2i − 1)  (dj − 1) + 2h − 1 nd0 + (2h + 1)(n − 1), if z = 1,

 i=1 1≤j≤i
=    

 h−1
X Y



  (2h − 2i − 1)  (dj − 1) + 2h + 1 2n − 2h − 1, if z = 2.

i=0 0≤j≤i
(15)

Proof. The order of T z , L(T z ) and diameter d of T z are given by

  
 h−1
X Y

1 + d0 + d0 (dj − 1) , if z = 1,

 



|V (T z )| =  i=1 1≤j≤i 
 h−1
X Y

2 + 2

  (dj − 1) , if z = 2,


i=0 0≤j≤i

  
 h−1
X Y

d + d0 (i + 1)  (dj − 1) , if z = 1,

 0



i=1 1≤j≤i
L(T z ) =  
 h−1
X Y

2 (i + 1)  (dj − 1) , if z = 2,





i=0 0≤j≤i

(
2h, if z = 1,
d=
2h + 1, if z = 2.

Substituting the above in (6), we obtain the right-hand side of (15) as a lower bound for
rn(T z ✷Kn ). We now prove that this lower bound is tight by giving an ordering of V (T z ✷Kn )
which satisfies Theorem 3.2. For this purpose, denote V (Kn ) = {v0 , v1 , . . . , vn−1 } and V (T z ) =
{u0 , u1 , . . . , um−1 } such that the ordering u0 , u1 , . . . , un−1 is obtained as follows.
Case-1: z = 1.
In this case, let r be the unique center of T 1 . Denote d0 children of r by r0 , . . . , rd0 −1 . For
0 ≤ i ≤ d0 − 1, denote d1 − 1 children of ri by ri,0 , ri,1 , . . . , ri,d1 −1 . Inductively, denote the dl − 1
children of ri1 ,i2 ,...,il (0 ≤ i1 ≤ d0 −1, 0 ≤ i2 ≤ d1 −1, . . . , 0 ≤ il ≤ dl−1 −1) by ri1 ,i2 ,...,il ,il+1 , where
0 ≤ il+1 ≤ dl − 1. Continue this process until all the vertices of T 1 got indexed. Now obtain
an ordering u0 , u1 , . . . , um−1 of vertices of T 1 as follows: Set u0 := r and for 1 ≤ t ≤ m − 1, set
X
ut := ri1 ,i2 ,...,il , where j = 1+i1 +i2 d0 +. . .+il d0 (d1 −1) . . . (dl −1)+ d0 (d1 −1) . . . (dt −1).
l+1≤t≤h
Case-2: z = 2.
In this case, let r and r ′ be two centers of T 2 . Denote d0 − 1 children of r and r ′ by
r0 , r1 , . . . , rd0 −2 and r0′ , r1′ , . . . , rd′ 0 −2 , respectively. For 0 ≤ i ≤ d0 − 2, denote d1 − 1 children
of ri and ri′ by ri,0 , ri,1 , . . . , ri,d1 −1 and ri,0 ′ , r′ , . . . , r′
i,1 i,d1 −1 , respectively. Inductively, denote the
′
dl −1 children of ri1 ,i2 ,...,il and ri1 ,i2 ,...,il , where 0 ≤ i1 ≤ d0 −2, 0 ≤ i2 ≤ d1 −1, . . . , 0 ≤ il ≤ dl−1 −1
by ri1 ,i2 ,...,il ,il+1 and ri′1 ,i2 ,...,il ,il+1 respectively, where 0 ≤ il+1 ≤ dl − 1. Continue this process
until all the vertices of T 2 got indexed. Rename xj := ri1 ,i2 ,...,il and x′j := ri′1 ,i2 ,...,il , where
X
j = 1 + i1 + i2 (d0 − 1) + . . . + il (d0 − 1)(d1 − 1) . . . (dl − 1) + (d0 − 1)(d1 − 1) . . . (dt − 1).
l+1≤t≤h
12 Payal Vasoya and Devsi Bantva

Now obtain an ordering u0 , u1 , . . . , um−1 as follows: Set u0 := r, um−1 := r ′ and for 1 ≤ t ≤ m−2,
set (
xt/2 , if t ≡ 0 (mod 2),
ut := ′
x(t+1)/2 , if t ≡ 1 (mod 2).

We now consider the following two cases to give an ordering w0 , w1 , . . . , wmn−1 of V (T ✷Kn ) =
{(ui , vj ) : i = 0, 1, . . . , m − 1, j = 0, 1, . . . , n − 1}.
Case-1: |W (T )| = 1.
We consider the following two subcases to define an ordering w0 , w1 , . . . , wmn−1 of V (T 1 ✷Kn ).
Subcase 1: |V (T 1 )| ≤ |V (Kn )|.
In this case, for 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 1, define wt := (ui , vj ), where i ∈ {0, 1, . . . , m − 1} j ∈
{0, 1, . . . , n − 1} and

m(j − i) + i if j ≥ i and j − i 6= n − 1,




 m(n + j − i) + i if j < i and i − j 6= 1,


t :=

 m(n + j − i) + i − 1 if j < i and i − j = 1,


 mn − 1

if j − i = n − 1.

Subcase 2: |V (T 1 )| > |V (Kn )|.

In this case, for x lcm(m, n) ≤ t ≤ (x + 1) lcm(m, n) − 1, where 0 ≤ x ≤ gcd(m, n) − 1, set

 (ui , vj+x ), if t ≡ i (mod m), t ≡ j (mod n) and 0 ≤ j ≤ n − (x + 1),
αt :=
 (ui , vj+x−n ), if t ≡ i (mod m), t ≡ j (mod n) and n − x ≤ j ≤ n − 1,

Define an ordering w0 , w1 , . . . , wmn−1 of V (T 1 ✷Kn ) as follows: For 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 1, set


α, if 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − m − 1,
 t


wt := αt+1 , if mn − m ≤ t ≤ mn − 2,


αmn−m , if t = mn − 1.


Then, for above defined ordering, it is clear that (a) L(ui0 ) = L(uimn−1 ) = L(u0 ) = 0, (b)
vjt and vjt+1 are distinct for 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 2, (c) uit and uit+1 are in different branches for
0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 2 and (d) L(uit ) ≤ d/2 for all 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 1. Hence the conditions (a)-(d) of
Theorem 3.3 are satisfies. We now show that the condition (e) of Theorem 3.3 holds as follows.
Claim-1: The above defined ordering w0 , w1 , . . . , wmn−1 of V (T 1 ✷Kn ) satisfies (13).
Let wa = (uia , vja ) and wb = (uib , vjb ) (0 ≤ a < b ≤ mn − 1) be two vertices such that uia
and uib are in the same branch when viewed as vertices of T 1 . Denote the right-hand side of
(13) by Pa,b . In this case, note that d0 ≥ 3, ε = 1 and L(ut ) ≤ d/2 for all 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 1.
Observe that wa = (uia , vja ) and wb = (uib , vjb ) such that uia and uib both are in the same
branch of T 2 then there are two possibilities: (1) ia 6= ib (2) ia = ib . In case of (1), we have
b − a ≥ αd0 , where α ≥ φ(uia , uib ). Hence, Pa,b = ((b − a − 1)/2) (d + 1) − b−1
P
t=a+1 L(uit ) ≥
Pb−1
((b − a − 1)/2) (d + 1) − t=a+1 (d/2) = ((b − a − 1)/2) = α(d0 − 1)/2 ≥ φ(uia , uib ). In case
of (2), note that b − a ≥ m ≥ d + 1. Hence, Pa,b = ((b − a − 1)/2) (d + 1) − b−1
P
t=a+1 L(uit ) ≥
Pb−1
((b − a − 1)/2) (d + 1) − t=a+1 (d/2) = ((b − a − 1)/2) = d/2 ≥ φ(uia , uib ).
Case-2: |W (T )| = 2
 Radio number for the Cartesian product of a tree and a complete graph 13

Again we consider the following two subcases to define an ordering w0 , w1 , . . . , wmn−1 of

V (T 2 ✷Kn ).
Subcase 1: |V (T )| ≤ |V (Kn )|.
In this case, for 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 1, define wt := (ui , vj ), where i ∈ {0, 1, . . . , m − 1}, j ∈
{0, 1, . . . , n − 1} and
(
m(j − i) + i, if j ≥ i,
t :=
m(n + j − i) + i, if j < i.
Subcase 2: |V (T )| > |V (Kn )|.
In this case, define an ordering w0 , w1 , . . . , wmn−1 of V (T 2 ✷Kn ) as follows: For x lcm(m, n) ≤
t ≤ (x + 1) lcm(m, n) − 1, where 0 ≤ x ≤ gcd(m, n) − 1, set

 (ui , vj+x ), if t ≡ i (mod m), t ≡ j (mod n) and 0 ≤ j ≤ n − (x + 1),
wt :=
 (ui , vj+x−n ), if t ≡ i (mod m), t ≡ j (mod n) and n − x ≤ j ≤ n − 1,

Then, for above defined ordering, it is clear that (a) L(ui0 ) = L(uimn−1 ) = L(u0 ) = 0, (b)
vjt and vjt+1 are distinct for 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 2, (c) uit and uit+1 are in different branches for
0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 2 and (d) L(uit ) ≤ (d − 1)/2 for all 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 1. Hence the conditions
(a)-(d) of Theorem 3.3 are satisfied. Now we prove that the condition (e) of Theorem 3.3 holds
as follows.
Claim-2: The above defined ordering w0 , w1 , . . . , wmn−1 of V (T 2 ✷Kn ) satisfies (13).
Let wa = (uia , vja ) and wb = (uib , vjb ) (0 ≤ a < b ≤ mn − 1) be two vertices such that uia
and uib are in the same branch when viewed as vertices of T 2 . Denote the right-hand side of
(13) by Pa,b . In this case, note that d0 ≥ 3, ε = 0 and L(ut ) ≤ (d − 1)/2 for all 0 ≤ t ≤ mn − 1.
Observe that wa = (uia , vja ) and wb = (uib , vjb ) such that uia and uib both are in the same
branch of T 2 then there are two possibilities: (1) ia 6= ib , (2) ia = ib . In case of (1), we have
b− a ≥ α(d0 − 1), where α ≥ φ(uia , uib ). Hence, Pa,b = ((b − a − 1)/2) d− b−1
P
t=a+1 L(uit )− 1/2 ≥
Pb−1
((b − a − 1)/2) d − t=a+1 ((d − 1)/2) − 1/2 = (b − a − 2)/2 = α(d0 − 1)/2 ≥ φ(uia , uib ). In case
of (2), note that b − a ≥ m ≥ d + 1. Hence, Pa,b = ((b − a − 1)/2) d − b−1
P
t=a+1 L(uit ) − 1/2 ≥
Pb−1
((b − a − 1)/2) d − t=a+1 ((d − 1)/2) − 1/2 = (b − a − 2)/2 = α(d − 1)/2 ≥ φ(uia , uib ).

Corollary 4.2. Let q ≥ 3 and n ≥ 4 be any integers. Then

rn(K1,q ✷Kn ) = (q + 3)n − 3.

Corollary 4.3. Let q ≥ 2 and n ≥ 4 be any integers. Then

rn(Dq ✷Kn ) = 2n(q + 3) − 3.

Corollary 4.4. Let k, n ≥ 4 and q ≥ 5 be any integers. Then

rn(Bq,k ✷Kn ) = qn(k + 6) + 7(n − 1).

Example 4.1. In Table 1, a vertex ordering O(V (K1,6 ✷K7 )) := w0 , w1 , . . . , w48 and an optimal
radio labelling of K1,6 ✷K7 are shown.

Example 4.2. In Table 2, a vertex ordering O(V (D5 ✷K7 )) := w0 , w1 , . . . , w83 and an optimal
radio labelling of D5 ✷K7 are shown.
14 Payal Vasoya and Devsi Bantva

Table 1: rn(K1,6 ✷K7 ) = 60.

(ui , vj ) v0 v1 v2 v3 v4 v5 v6
u0 w0 → 0 w7 → 9 w14 → 18 w21 → 27 w28 → 36 w35 → 45 w48 → 60
u1 w42 → 53 w1 → 2 w8 → 11 w15 → 20 w22 → 29 w29 → 38 w36 → 47
u2 w37 → 48 w43 → 54 w2 → 3 w9 → 12 w16 → 21 w23 → 30 w30 → 39
u3 w31 → 40 w38 → 49 w44 → 55 w3 → 4 w10 → 13 w17 → 22 w24 → 31
u4 w25 → 32 w32 → 41 w39 → 50 w45 → 56 w4 → 5 w11 → 14 w18 → 23
u5 w19 → 24 w26 → 33 w33 → 42 w40 → 51 w46 → 57 w5 → 6 w12 → 15
u6 w13 → 16 w20 → 25 w27 → 34 w34 → 43 w41 → 12 w47 → 58 w6 → 7

Table 2: rn(D5 ✷K7 ) =109.

(ui , vj ) v0 v1 v2 v3 v4 v5 v6
u0 w0 → 0 w36 → 48 w72 → 96 w24 → 32 w60 → 80 w12 → 16 w48 → 64
u1 w49 → 66 w1 → 2 w37 → 50 w73 → 98 w25 → 34 w61 → 82 w13 → 18
u2 w14 → 19 w50 → 67 w2 → 3 w38 → 51 w74 → 99 w26 → 35 w62 → 83
u3 w63 → 84 w15 → 20 w51 → 68 w3 → 4 w39 → 52 w75 → 100 w27 → 36
u4 w28 → 37 w64 → 85 w16 → 21 w52 → 69 w4 → 5 w40 → 53 w76 → 101
u5 w77 → 102 w29 → 38 w65 → 86 w17 → 22 w53 → 70 w5 → 6 w41 → 54
u6 w42 → 55 w78 → 103 w30 → 39 w66 → 87 w18 → 23 w54 → 71 w6 → 7
u7 w7 → 8 w43 → 56 w79 → 104 w31 → 40 w67 → 88 w19 → 24 w55 → 72
u8 w56 → 73 w8 → 9 w44 → 57 w80 → 105 w32 → 41 w68 → 89 w20 → 25
u9 w21 → 26 w57 → 74 w9 → 10 w45 → 58 w81 → 106 w33 → 42 w69 → 90
u10 w70 → 91 w22 → 27 w58 → 75 w10 → 11 w46 → 59 w82 → 107 w34 → 43
u11 w35 → 45 w71 → 93 w23 → 29 w59 → 77 w11 → 13 w47 → 61 w83 → 109

Concluding Remarks
In [11], Kim et al. determined the radio number of a path Pm (m ≥ 4) and the complete graph
Kn (n ≥ 3) as follows:
(
m2 n−2m+2
2 , if m is even,
rn(Pm ✷Kn ) = m2 n−2m+n+2
(16)
2 , if m is odd.

This result can be proved using our results. The outline of the proof is as follows: Since a path
Pm is a tree, we use Theorem 3.1 and 3.2 to prove the result. Note that the diameter d of a
path Pm is m − 1. We consider the following two cases.
Case-1: m is even. In this case, the total level of a path Pm is given by L(Pm ) = m(m − 2)/2.
Substituting this in (6), we obtain rn(Pm ✷Kn ) ≥ (m2 n − 2m + 2)/2. Now observe that the
ordering of V (Pm ✷Kn ) given in [11] satisfies the conditions (a)-(c) of Theorem 3.2 and hence
we obtain that the first line in (16) holds
Case-2: m is odd. In this case, the total level of a path Pm is given by L(Pm ) = (m2 − 1)/2.
Substituting this in (6), we obtain rn(Pm ✷Kn ) ≥ (m2 n − 2m + n)/2. Now if possible then
assume that rn(Pm ✷Kn ) = (m2 n − 2m + n)/2 then by Theorem 3.2, there exist an ordering
w0 , w1 , . . . , wmn−1 of V (Pm ✷Kn ) such that the conditions (a)-(c) of Theorem 3.2 hold. Since
L(ui0 ) = L(uimn−1 ) by (a), observe that there exist a vertex wk = (uik , vjk ) such that L(uik ) =
(m − 1)/2 and L(uik−1 ) 6= 0, L(uik+1 ) 6= 0. Note that d(uik−1 , uik+1 ) = L(uik−1 ) + L(uik+1 ) −
2φ(uik−1 , uik+1 ) with φ(uik−1 , uik+1 ) ≥ 1. Denote the right-hand side of (9) by Sa,b and consider
uik−1 and uik+1 in (9) then we obtain, Sk−1,k+1 = L(uik−1 )+2L(uik )+L(uik+1 )−(d+1) = L(uik )+
 Radio number for the Cartesian product of a tree and a complete graph 15

2((d + 1)/2) + L(uik+1 ) − (d + 1) = L(uik−1 ) + L(uik+1 ) > L(uik−1 ) + L(uik+1 ) − 2φ(uik−1 , uik+1 ) =
d(uik−1 , uik+1 ) which is a contradiction. Hence, rn(Pm ✷Kn ) ≥ (m2 n − 2m + n + 2)/2. Now
observe that the ordering of V (Pm ✷Kn ) given in [11] satisfies the conditions (a)-(c) of Theorem
3.2 and hence we obtain that the second line in (16) holds which completes the proof.
References
[1] D. Bantva, Further results on the radio of trees, Electron. Notes Discrete Math. 63 (2017),
85–91.

[2] D. Bantva and D. Liu, Optimal radio labellings of block graphs and line graphs of trees,
Theoretical Computer Science 891 (2021), 90–104.

[3] D. Bantva, S. Vaidya and S. Zhou, Radio number of trees, Discrete Appl. Math. 217 (2017),
110–122.

[4] K. F. Benson, M. Porter, M. Kanwal, The radio numbers of all graphs of order n and
diameter n − 2, Le Matematiche, 68 (2013), 167–190.

[5] T. Calamoneri, The L(h, k)-labelling problem: An updated survey and annotated bibliog-
raphy, The Computer Journal, 54(8) (2011), 1344–1371.

[6] G. Chartrand, D. Erwin, F. Harary and P. Zhang, Radio labellings of graphs, Bull. Inst.
Combin. Appl., 33 (2001), 77–85.

[7] G. Chartrand, D. Erwin and P. Zhang, A graph labelling suggested by FM channel restric-
tions, Bull. Inst. Combin. Appl., 43 (2005) 43–57.

[8] J. R. Griggs and R. K. Yeh, Labelling graphs with condition at distance 2, SIAM J. Discrete
Math., 5(4) (1992), 586–595.

[9] V. Halász and Z. Tuza, Distance-constrained labelling of complete trees, Discrete Math.,
338 (2015) 1398–1406.

[10] W. K. Hale, Frequency assignment: Theory and applications, Proc. IEEE, 68(12) (1980),
1497–1514.

[11] B. M. Kim, W. Hwang, and B. C. Song, Radio number for the product of a path and a
complete graph, J. Comb. Optim., 30 (2015), 139—149.

[12] X. Li, V. Mak and S. Zhou, Optimal radio labellings of complete m-ary trees, Discrete
Applied Math., 158 (2010) 507–515.

[13] D. Liu, Radio number for trees, Discrete Math., 308 (2008), 1153–1164.

[14] D. Liu, L. Saha, S. Das, Improved lower bounds of the radio number of trees, Theoretical
Computer Science, 851 (2021), 1-13.

[15] D. Liu and M. Xie, Radio number of square cycles, Congr. Numer., 169 (2004), 105–125.

[16] D. Liu and M. Xie, Radio number of square paths, Ars Combin., 90 (2009), 307–319.

[17] D. Liu and X. Zhu, Multilevel distance labellings for paths and cycles, SIAM J. Discrete
Math., 19 (2005), 610–621.
16 Payal Vasoya and Devsi Bantva

[18] D. B. West, Introduction to graph theory, Prentice Hall, 2001.

[19] R. K. Yeh, A survey on labelling graphs with a condition at distance two, Discrete Math.,
306 (2006), 1217–1231.