Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
ScienceDirect
AKCE International Journal of Graphs and Combinatorics 15 (2018) 7–13
www.elsevier.com/locate/akcej

On total edge irregularity strength of centralized uniform theta

graphs
Riyan Wicaksana Putra, Yeni Susanti ∗
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Received 17 February 2017; received in revised form 11 January 2018; accepted 1 February 2018
Available online 12 February 2018

Abstract

Let G = (V, E) be a simple connected and undirected graph. Let f : V ∪ E → {1, 2, . . . , k} be a total labeling of G. The
weight of an edge uv is defined by w f (uv) = f (u) + f (v) + f (uv). The labeling f is called an edge irregular total k-labeling if
w f (uv) ̸= w f (u ′ v ′ ) for any two distinct edges uv, u ′ v ′ . If G admits such a labeling, then the minimum k is called the total edge
irregularity strength of G. In this paper we determine the total edge irregularity strength of centralized uniform theta graphs.
⃝c 2018 Kalasalingam University. Publishing Services by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Irregular total labeling; Total edge irregularity strength; Uniform theta graphs

1. Introduction

Let G = (V, E) be a simple, connected and undirected graph. Motivated by [1], Bača et al. defined the so-called
edge irregular total k-labeling on graph G = (V, E), as a total k-labeling f : V ∪ E → {1, 2, . . . , k} such that the
weights of all edges are distinct [2]. The weight of edge uv under k-labeling f , denoted by wt f (uv), is calculated
by summing the label of u, the label of v and the label of uv, i.e. wt f (uv) = f (u) + f (uv) + f (v). The minimum
k such that G admits an edge irregular total k-labeling is called the total edge irregularity strength of G, denoted by
tes(G) [2].
Bača et al. in [2] gave a result on the lower bound of total edge irregularity strength of any graph G with maximum
degree ∆(G) as follows
{⌈ ⌉ ⌈ ⌉}
|E| + 2 ∆(G) + 1
tes(G) ≥ max , . (1)
3 2

Peer review under responsibility of Kalasalingam University.

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: riyan.wicaksana.p@mail.ugm.ac.id (R.W. Putra), yeni math@ugm.ac.id (Y. Susanti).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.akcej.2018.02.002
0972-8600/⃝ c 2018 Kalasalingam University. Publishing Services by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
8 R.W. Putra, Y. Susanti / AKCE International Journal of Graphs and Combinatorics 15 (2018) 7–13

Fig. 1. Uniform theta graph θ (3; 2).

Fig. 2. Centralized uniform theta graph θ ∗ (3; 2; 4).

Motivated by this result, Ivančo and Jendrol in [3] determined the total edge irregularity strength of trees. Moreover,
they posed a conjecture stating that for any graph G different from K 5 , the total edge irregularity strength of G is
precisely the lower bound of (1). Recently, it was proven, the conjecture is true for subdivision of star graphs (in [4,5])
and for series parallel graphs (in [6]).
In [7], Rajan et al. defined a generalized theta graph θ (s1 , s2 , . . . , sn ) consisting a pair of end vertices joined by n
internal disjoint paths of length at least two, where si denote the number of internal vertices in the ith path. The end
vertices are called north pole (N) and south pole (S), respectively. A generalized theta graph is called uniform theta
graph if all paths connecting the two poles have the same number of internal vertices. We denote by θ(n; m) for the
uniform theta graph with n ≥ 3 paths connecting the poles and m ≥ 1 internal vertices in each path. Fig. 1 shows
uniform theta graph θ (3; 2) with 3 internal disjoint paths and 2 internal vertices.
In [6], Rajasingh and Arockiamary constructed a graph by composing a series of uniform theta graphs, that is, by
merging the south pole of one uniform theta graph onto the north pole of another uniform theta graph. They managed
to obtain the total edge irregularity strength of the constructed graph. While in [4], Siddiqui constructed a subdivision
of star, denoted by Snm , by merging one of the end vertices of some paths. However, the total edge irregularity strength
of Snm for m ≥ 9 and n ≥ 3 was becoming an open problem until Hinding et al. determined it in [5].
Motivated by [4–6], we construct a centralized uniform theta graph by collecting some uniform theta graphs of the
same type and merging one of their poles. We denote by θ ∗ (n; m; p) for centralized uniform theta graphs, constructed
from p ≥ 3 uniform theta graphs θ (n; m). Fig. 2 shows the centralized uniform theta graph θ ∗ (3; 2; 4) which is
constructed from 4 uniform theta graphs θ (3; 2).
We name the vertices of the uniform theta graph θ ∗ (n; m; p) in this way: we denote the merged pole by c0 , the jth
internal vertex of ith path from the lth uniform theta graph θ (n; m) by xi, j,l , and the unmerged poles of lth uniform
theta graph θ (n; m) by cl . Fig. 3 shows the centralized uniform theta graph θ ∗ (n; m; p) with such notation.
From the above notation, for the centralized uniform theta graph θ ∗ (n; m; p) = (V, E), we have V = {c0 }∪{cl |1 ≤
l ≤ p} ∪ {xi, j,l |1 ≤ i ≤ n, 1 ≤ j ≤ m, 1 ≤ l ≤ p} and E = {c0 xi,1,l |1 ≤ i ≤ n, 1 ≤ l ≤ p} ∪ {xi,m,l cl |1 ≤ i ≤
n, 1 ≤ l ≤ p} ∪ {xi, j−1,l xi, j,l |1 ≤ i ≤ n, 2 ≤ j ≤ m, 1 ≤ l ≤ p}. Hence, |V | = (nm + 1) p + 1, |E| = n(m + 1) p,
and ∆(θ ∗ (n; m; p)) = np.
 R.W. Putra, Y. Susanti / AKCE International Journal of Graphs and Combinatorics 15 (2018) 7–13 9

Fig. 3. Centralized uniform theta graph θ ∗ (n; m; p).

In this paper, we first determine the total edge irregularity strength of centralized uniform theta graph θ ∗ (3, 1, 3).
Then, we generalize for each parameter n, m, p and find the total edge irregularity strength of centralized uniform
theta graphs θ ∗ (n, 1, 3) for n > 3, θ ∗ (3, m, 3) for m > 1, and θ ∗ (3, 1, p) for p > 3. Finally, we determine the total
edge irregularity strength of the centralized uniform theta graphs θ ∗ (n; m; p) for n ≥ 3, m ≥ 1, and p ≥ 3.

2. Total edge irregularity strength of centralized uniform theta graphs

The following lemma gives the value of the total edge irregularity strength of centralized uniform theta graph
θ (3; 1; 3).
∗

Lemma 1. For a centralized uniform theta graph θ ∗ (3; 1; 3), we have

tes(θ ∗ (3; 1; 3)) = 7.

Proof. The centralized uniform theta graph θ ∗ (3; 1; 3) = (V, E) has 13 vertices, 18 edges, and ∆(θ ∗ (3; 1; 3)) = 9.
Therefore by (1), we have
{⌈ ⌉ ⌈ ⌉}
18 + 2 9+1
tes(θ ∗ (3; 1; 3)) ≥ max , = max{7, 5} = 7.
3 2
10 R.W. Putra, Y. Susanti / AKCE International Journal of Graphs and Combinatorics 15 (2018) 7–13

Fig. 4. Total edge irregular 7-labeling for centralized uniform theta graph θ ∗ (3; 1; 3).

We only need to show that there exists an edge irregular total k-labeling for θ ∗ (3; 1; 3), with k = 7. Let z = (l −1)3+i
and k = 7. We define a total k-labeling α : V ∪ E → {1, 2, . . . , k} as follows
α(c0 ) = 1,
α(cl ) = k for 1 ≤ l ≤ 3,
α(xi,1,l ) = 1 for 1 ≤ z ≤ 3,
α(xi,1,l ) = z−2 for 4 ≤ z ≤ 9.
α(c0 xi,1,l ) = z + 2 − α(c0 ) − α(xi,1,l ) for 1 ≤ i ≤ 3 and 1 ≤ l ≤ 3,
α(xi,1,l cl ) = z + 11 − α(xi,1,l ) − α(cl ) for 1 ≤ i ≤ 3 and 1 ≤ l ≤ 3.
It is obvious that the greatest label used is k. While the weights of the edges of θ ∗ (3; 1; 3) are
wα (c0 xi,1,l ) = z + 2 for 1 ≤ i ≤ 3 and 1 ≤ l ≤ 3,
wα (xi,1,l cl ) = z + 11 for 1 ≤ i ≤ 3 and 1 ≤ l ≤ 3.
It follows that the weights of edges are distinct and vary from 3 to 20. Thus, α is an edge irregular total 7-labeling for
θ (3, 1, 3). Hence, the total edge irregularity strength for θ ∗ (3; 1; 3) is 7. □

The above labeling for θ ∗ (3; 1; 3) is shown in Fig. 4.

The total edge irregularity strength of centralized uniform theta graphs θ ∗ (n; 1; 3) for n > 3, θ ∗ (3; m; 3) for m > 1,
and θ ∗ (3; 1; p) for p > 3 are given by the following lemmas.

Lemma 2. Let θ ∗ (n; 1; 3), n > 3, be a centralized uniform theta graph. Then
⌈ ⌉
6n + 2
tes(θ ∗ (n; 1; 3)) = .
3

Proof. The centralized uniform theta graph θ ∗ (n; 1; 3) has 3n + 4 vertices and 6n edges, and ∆(θ ∗ (n; 1; 3)) = 3n.
By (1), we have
{⌈ ⌉ ⌈ ⌉} ⌈ ⌉
6n + 2 3n + 1 6n + 2
tes(θ ∗ (n; 1; 3)) ≥ max , = .
3 2 3
We only need to show that there exists an edge irregular total k-labeling for θ ∗ (n; 1; 3) where n > 3, with
k = ⌈(6n + 2)/3⌉. Let z = (l − 1)n + i for 1 ≤ l ≤ n and 1 ≤ i ≤ 3. We have z = 1, 2, . . . , 3n. Let k = ⌈(6n + 2)/3⌉.
 R.W. Putra, Y. Susanti / AKCE International Journal of Graphs and Combinatorics 15 (2018) 7–13 11

We define a total k-labeling β : V ∪ E → {1, 2, . . . , k} for θ ∗ (n; 1; 3) by:

β(c0 ) = 1,
β(cl ) = k ⌈ ⌉ for 1 ≤ l ≤ 3,
⌈ ⌉
3n − 1 3n − 1
β(xi,1,l ) = k + − 3n for 1 ≤ z ≤ ,
3 3
⌈ ⌉
3n − 1
β(xi,1,l ) = k + z − 3n for + 1 ≤ z ≤ 3n.
3
β(c0 xi,1,l ) = z + 2 − β(c0 ) − β(xi,1,l ) for 1 ≤ i ≤ n and 1 ≤ l ≤ 3,
β(xi,1,l cl ) = z + 3n + 2 − β(xi,1,l ) − β(cl ) for 1 ≤ i ≤ n and 1 ≤ l ≤ 3.
It is clear that the maximum label of the vertices and the edges is k. The weights of edges are as the following:
wβ (c0 xi,1,l ) = z + 2 for 1 ≤ i ≤ n and 1 ≤ l ≤ 3,
wβ (xi,1,l cl ) = z + 3n + 2 for 1 ≤ i ≤ n and 1 ≤ l ≤ 3.
Therefore, the weights of edges are all different and are varying from 3 to 6n + 2. Hence, β is an edge irregular total
k-labeling for θ ∗ (n; 1; 3) with n > 3. Thus, the total edge irregularity strength for θ ∗ (n; 1; 3) is ⌈(6n + 2)/3⌉. □

Lemma 3. Let θ ∗ (3; m; 3), m > 1, be a centralized uniform theta graph. Then
⌈ ⌉
9m + 11
∗
tes(θ (3; m; 3)) = .
3

Proof. The centralized uniform theta graph θ ∗ (3; m; 3) has 9m +4 vertices and 9m +9 edges, and ∆(θ ∗ (3; m; 3)) = 9.
Again, by (1), we have
{⌈ ⌉ ⌈ ⌉}
9m + 9 + 2 9+1
∗
tes(θ (3; m; 3)) ≥ max ,
3 2
{⌈ ⌉ }
9m + 11
= max ,5
3
⌈ ⌉
9m + 11
= .
3
We complete the proof by showing the existence of an edge irregular total k-labeling for θ ∗ (3; m; 3) where m > 1,
with k = ⌈(9m + 11)/3⌉. Let z = (l − 1)3 + i for 1 ≤ l ≤ 3 and 1 ≤ i ≤ 3. We have z = 1, 2, . . . , 9. We define a
total k-labeling γ : V ∪ E → {1, 2, . . . , k} for θ ∗ (3; m; 3) as follows
γ (c0 ) = 1,
γ (cl ) = k for 1 ≤ l ≤ 3,
⌈ ⌉
9 j + 11
γ (xi, j,l ) = −6 for 1 ≤ z ≤ 3 and 1 ≤ j ≤ m,
3
⌈ ⌉
9 j + 11
γ (xi, j,l ) = +z−9 for 4 ≤ z ≤ 9 and 1 ≤ j ≤ m.
3
γ (c0 xi,1,l ) = z + 2 − γ (c0 ) − γ (xi,1,l ) for 1 ≤ i ≤ 3 and 1 ≤ l ≤ 3,
γ (xi,m,l cl ) = z + 9m + 2 − γ (xi,m,l ) − γ (cl ) for 1 ≤ z ≤ 9,
γ (xi, j−1,l xi, j,l ) = z + 9 j − 7 − γ (xi, j−1,l ) − γ (xi, j,l ) for 1 ≤ z ≤ 9 and 2 ≤ j ≤ m.
Clearly, the label of vertices and edges is at most k. We obtain the weights of edges as follows:
wγ (c0 xi,1,l ) = z + 2 − γ (c0 ) − γ (xi,1,l ) for 1 ≤ i ≤ 3 and 1 ≤ l ≤ 3,
wγ (xi,1,l cl ) = z + 9m + 2 for 1 ≤ z ≤ 9,
wγ (xi, j−1,l xi, j,l ) = z + 9 j − 7 for 1 ≤ z ≤ 9 and 2 ≤ j ≤ m.
The weights of edges are all distinct and vary from 3 to 9m + 11. Hence, γ is an edge irregular total k-labeling for
θ ∗ (3; m; 3) where m > 1. Thus, the total edge irregularity strength for θ ∗ (3; m; 3) is ⌈(9m + 11)/3⌉. □
12 R.W. Putra, Y. Susanti / AKCE International Journal of Graphs and Combinatorics 15 (2018) 7–13

Lemma 4. Let θ ∗ (3; 1; p), p > 3, be centralized uniform theta graph. Then
⌈ ⌉
6p + 2
tes(θ ∗ (3; 1; p)) = .
3

Proof. The centralized uniform theta graph θ ∗ (3; 1; p) has 4 p + 1 vertices and 6 p edges, and ∆(θ ∗ (3; 1; p)) = 3 p.
By (1), we obtain
{⌈ ⌉ ⌈ ⌉} ⌈ ⌉
6p + 2 3p + 1 6p + 2
∗
tes(θ (3; 1; p)) ≥ max , = .
3 2 3
We need to show that there is an edge irregular total k-labeling for θ ∗ (3; 1; p) where p > 3 such that k = ⌈(6 p+2)/3⌉.
Let z = (l − 1)3 + i for 1 ≤ l ≤ 3 and 1 ≤ i ≤ p. We have z = 1, 2, . . . , 3 p. Let k = ⌈(6 p + 2)/3⌉. We define a
total k-labeling θ : V ∪ E → {1, 2, . . . , k} for θ ∗ (3; 1; p) by
θ (c0 ) = 1,
θ (cl ) = k ⌈ ⌉ for 1 ≤ l ≤ 3,
⌈ ⌉
3p + 1 3p + 1
θ (xi,1,l ) = k + − 3p for 1 ≤ z ≤ ,
3 ⌈ ⌉ 3
3p + 1
θ (xi,1,l ) = k + z − 3 p for + 1 ≤ z ≤ 3 p.
3
θ (c0 xi,1,l ) = z + 2 − θ (c0 ) − θ (xi,1,l ) for 1 ≤ z ≤ 3 p,
θ (xi,1,l cl ) = z + 3 p + 2 − θ (xi,1,l ) − θ (cl ) for 1 ≤ z ≤ 3 p.
It is clear that the label is at most k. The weights of the edges are:
wθ (c0 xi,1,l ) = z + 2 for 1 ≤ z ≤ 3 p,
wθ (xi,1,l cl ) = z + 3 p + 2 for 1 ≤ z ≤ 3 p.
It follows that the weights of edges are distinct and are varying from 3 up to 6 p +2. Thus, θ is an edge irregular total k-
labeling for θ ∗ (3; 1; p) where p > 3. Therefore, the total edge irregularity strength for θ ∗ (3; 1; p) is ⌈(6 p+2)/3⌉. □
Finally, we determine the total edge irregularity strength for the centralized uniform theta graphs.

Theorem 5. Let θ ∗ (n; m; p), n ≥ 3, m ≥ 1, and p ≥ 3, be a centralized uniform theta graph. Then
⌈ ⌉
n(m + 1) p + 2
tes(θ ∗ (n; m; p)) = .
3

Proof. The centralized uniform theta graph θ ∗ (n; m; p) has (nm + 1) p + 1 vertices, n(m + 1) p edges, and
∆(θ ∗ (3; 1; p)) = np. It has been proven that the statement is true for the centralized uniform theta graphs θ ∗ (3; 1; 3),
θ ∗ (n; 1; 3) for n > 3, θ ∗ (3; m; 3) for m > 1, and θ ∗ (3; 1; p) for p > 3 (see Lemmas 1, 2, 3, and 4). By (1),
{⌈ ⌉ ⌈ ⌉} ⌈ ⌉
n(m + 1) p + 2 np + 1 n(m + 1) p + 2
tes(θ ∗ (n; m; p)) ≥ max , = .
3 2 3
Now, we will show the existence of an edge irregular total k-labeling for θ ∗ (n; m; p) where n ≥ 3, m ≥ 1, and p ≥ 3
with k = ⌈(n(m + 1) p + 2)/3⌉. Let z = (l − 1)n + i for 1 ≤ l ≤ p and 1 ≤ i ≤ n. We have z = 1, 2, . . . , np. Let
k = ⌈(n(m + 1) p + 2)/3⌉. We define a total k-labeling ω : V ∪ E → {1, 2, . . . , k} for θ (n, m, p) in the following
manner:
ω(c0 ) = 1,
ω(cl ) = k for 1 ≤ l ≤ p,
⌈ ⌉ ⌈ ⌉ ⌈ ⌉
n( j + 1) p + 2 np + 1 np + 1
ω(xi, j,l ) = + − np for 1 ≤ z ≤ and 1 ≤ j ≤ m,
⌈ 3 ⌉ 3 ⌈ ⌉ 3
n( j + 1) p + 2 np + 1
ω(xi, j,l ) = + z − np for ≤ z ≤ np and 1 ≤ j ≤ m.
3 3
ω(c0 xi,1,l ) = z + 2 − ω(c0 ) − ω(xi,1,l ) for 1 ≤ i ≤ n and 1 ≤ l ≤ p,
ω(xi,m,l cl ) = z + nmp + 2 − ω(xi,m,l ) − ω(cl ) for 1 ≤ z ≤ np,
ω(xi, j−1,l xi, j,l ) = z + n( j − 1) p − 2 − ω(xi, j−1,l ) − ω(xi, j,l ) for 1 ≤ z ≤ np and 2 ≤ j ≤ m.
 R.W. Putra, Y. Susanti / AKCE International Journal of Graphs and Combinatorics 15 (2018) 7–13 13

It is obvious that the label of vertices and edges is at most k. The weights of edges are
wω (c0 xi,1,l ) = z + 2 for 1 ≤ z ≤ np,
wω (xi,m,l cl ) = z + nmp + 2 for 1 ≤ z ≤ np,
wω (xi, j−1,l xi, j,l ) = z + n( j − 1) p − 2 for 1 ≤ z ≤ np and 2 ≤ j ≤ m.
It follows that the weights of edges are all different and are varying from 3 to n(m + 1) p + 2. Thus, ω is an
edge irregular total k-labeling of θ ∗ (n; m; p). Hence the total edge irregularity strength of θ ∗ (n; m; p) is precisely
⌈(n(m + 1) p + 2)/3⌉. □

3. Conclusion
Our presented results support Ivančo and Jendrol’s conjecture, by the fact that the value of total edge irregularity
strength of centralized uniform theta graphs θ ∗ (n; m; p) for n ≥ 3, m ≥ 1, and p ≥ 3 is ⌈(n(m + 1) p + 2)/3⌉.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to appreciate the reviewers for their comments and suggestions which helped authors
improve the paper.

References
[1] W.D. Wallis, Magic Graphs, Birkhäuser, Boston, 2001.
[2] M. Bača, S. Jendrol, M. Miller, J. Ryan, On irregular total labellings, Discrete Math. 307 (11) (2007) 1378–1388.
[3] J. Ivančo, S. Jendrol, Total edge irregularity strength of trees, Discuss. Math. Graph Theory 26 (3) (2006) 449–456.
[4] M.K. Siddiqui, On edge irregularity strength of subdivision of star Sn , Int. J. Math. Soft Comput. 2 (1) (2012) 75–82.
[5] N. Hinding, N. Suardi, H. Basir, Total edge irregularity strength of subdivision of star, J. Discrete Math. Sci. Cryptogr. 18 (6) (2015) 869–875.
[6] I. Rajasingh, S.T. Arockiamary, Total edge irregularity strength of series parallel graphs, Int. J. Pure Appl. Math. 99 (1) (2015) 11–21.
[7] B. Rajan, I. Rajasingh, P. Venugopal, Metric dimension of uniform and quasi-uniform theta graphs, J. Comput. Math. Sci. 2 (1) (2011) 37–46.