
The Wiener index W(G) of a graph G is one of the most well-known topological indices, which is defined as the sum of distances between all pairs of vertices of G. The diameter D(G) of G is the maximum distance between all pairs of vertices of G, and the conditional diameter D(G;s) is the maximum distance between all pairs of vertex subsets with cardinality s of G. When s=1, the conditional diameter D(G;s) is just the diameter D(G). The authors in [
Citation: Junfeng An, Yingzhi Tian. Graphs with a given conditional diameter that maximize the Wiener index[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(6): 15928-15936. doi: 10.3934/math.2024770
[1] | Zhen Wang, Kai Zhou . On the maximum atom-bond sum-connectivity index of unicyclic graphs with given diameter. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(8): 22239-22250. doi: 10.3934/math.20241082 |
[2] | Shengjie He, Qiaozhi Geng, Rong-Xia Hao . The extremal unicyclic graphs with given diameter and minimum edge revised Szeged index. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(11): 26301-26327. doi: 10.3934/math.20231342 |
[3] | Fawaz E. Alsaadi, Faisal Ali, Imran Khalid, Masood Ur Rehman, Muhammad Salman, Madini Obad Alassafi, Jinde Cao . Quantifying some distance topological properties of the non-zero component graph. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(4): 3512-3524. doi: 10.3934/math.2021209 |
[4] | Hongzhuan Wang, Xianhao Shi, Ber-Lin Yu . On the eccentric connectivity coindex in graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(1): 651-666. doi: 10.3934/math.2022041 |
[5] | Muhammad Kamran Jamil, Muhammad Imran, Aisha Javed, Roslan Hasni . On the first general Zagreb eccentricity index. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(1): 532-542. doi: 10.3934/math.2021032 |
[6] | Swathi Shetty, B. R. Rakshith, N. V. Sayinath Udupa . Extremal graphs and bounds for general Gutman index. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(11): 30454-30471. doi: 10.3934/math.20241470 |
[7] | Jianwei Du, Xiaoling Sun . On symmetric division deg index of trees with given parameters. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(6): 6528-6541. doi: 10.3934/math.2021384 |
[8] | Huadong Su, Zhunti Liang . The diameter of the nil-clean graph of Zn. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 24854-24859. doi: 10.3934/math.20241210 |
[9] | Zhen Lin . The biharmonic index of connected graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(4): 6050-6065. doi: 10.3934/math.2022337 |
[10] | Yufei Huang, Hechao Liu . Bounds of modified Sombor index, spectral radius and energy. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(10): 11263-11274. doi: 10.3934/math.2021653 |
The Wiener index W(G) of a graph G is one of the most well-known topological indices, which is defined as the sum of distances between all pairs of vertices of G. The diameter D(G) of G is the maximum distance between all pairs of vertices of G, and the conditional diameter D(G;s) is the maximum distance between all pairs of vertex subsets with cardinality s of G. When s=1, the conditional diameter D(G;s) is just the diameter D(G). The authors in [
Let G be a simple graph with vertex set V(G) and edge set E(G). The order and the size of G are n=|V(G)| and m=|E(G)|, respectively. The distance between two vertices u and v, denoted by d(u,v)=dG(u,v), is the length of the shortest path connecting u and v in G. There are plenty of distance-based topological indices, which are widely used in mathematical chemistry in order to describe and predict the properties of chemical compounds. One of the most well-known topological indices is the Wiener index, which was introduced in 1947 by Wiener [20]. The Wiener index W(G) of a graph G is defined as the sum of distances between all (unordered) pairs of vertices of G, that is,
W(G)=∑{u,v}⊆V(G)d(u,v). |
Mathematical properties and applications of the Wiener index have been extensively studied, see [1,3,5,6,7,9,10,11,12,16,17,21,22] for references.
The diameter D(G) of G is the maximum distance between all pairs of vertices in V(G), that is, D(G)=maxu,v∈V(G)d(u,v). For two nonempty vertex subsets V1 and V2, the distance between V1 and V2, denoted by d(V1,V2)=dG(V1,V2), is the minimum of the distances d(x,y) among all x∈V1 and y∈V2. Given a graphical property P satisfied by at least one pair (V1,V2) of nonempty subsets of V(G), the conditional diameter DP(G) of G is
DP(G)=max{d(V1,V2):∅≠V1,V2⊆V(G),(V1,V2) satisfies P}. |
Note that DP(G)=0 holds if and only if V1 and V2 overlap for every (V1,V2)⊆V(G)×V(G) that satisfies P. Conditional diameter measures the maximum distance between subgraphs satisfying a given property. So, their consideration could be of some interest if in some applications we need to control the communication delays between the network clusters modeled by such subgraphs.
The first choice of such a graphical property P1 is defined as follows: (V1, V2) satisfies P1 if and only if |V1|=|V2|=s, where s is a positive integer. In this case, the conditional diameter is denoted by D(G;s), which is defined as
D(G;s)=max{d(V1,V2):V1,V2⊆V(G),|V1|=|V2|=s}. |
Clearly, D(G;1) is the standard diameter D(G) of G. Thus D(G;s) can be seen as a generalization of the diameter D(G). When |V(G)|<2s, then D(G;s)=0. Moreover, when |V(G)|≥2s, it is easy to see that the inequality D(G;s)≤n−2s+1 holds.
Although the Wiener index has been extensively studied, there are still some unsolved interesting questions. For example, Plesník [15] posed the open problem "What is the maximum average distance among graphs of order n and diameter d?"; DeLaViña and Waller [8] conjectured that W(G)≤W(C2d+1) for any graph G with diameter d≥3 and order 2d+1, where C2d+1 is the cycle of length 2d+1. Some results related to the Wiener indices of graphs with given diameter can be seen in [13,14,19]. Particularly, Cambie [4] gave an asymptotic solution to the open problem of Plesník, and Sun et al. [18] characterized the graphs with the maximum Wiener index among all graphs with diameter D(G)=n−c, where 1≤c≤4.
Motivated by the results above, we will investigate the maximum Wiener index among all graphs with given conditional diameter in this paper. Specifically, we will characterize the graphs with the maximum Wiener index among all graphs with conditional diameter D(G;s)=n−2s−c, where −1≤c≤1. Some lemmas will be given in the next section. Main results will be presented in the last section.
The graphs considered in this paper are simple and undirected. For undefined notation and terminologies, we follow [2]. For a graph G, we denote by G−u and G−uv the graphs obtained from G by deleting the vertex u∈V(G) and the edge uv∈E(G), respectively. Similarly, G+xy is the graph obtained from G by adding an edge xy∉E(G). The induced subgraph G[U] for a vertex subset U⊆V(G) is G−V(G)∖U. The neighborhood of u in G is NG(u)={v|uv∈E(G)}. The degree dG(u) of u in G is |NG(v)|. If dG(u)=1, then u is called a pendent vertex of G. Denote by Pn and Cn the path and the cycle on n vertices, respectively.
The sum of distances between u and all other vertices of G is DG(u)=∑v∈V(G)d(u,v).
Lemma 2.1. ([9]) Let G be a graph of order n, v a pendent vertex of G, and u the vertex adjacent to v. Then W(G)=W(G−v)+DG−v(u)+n−1.
Lemma 2.2. ([13]) Let Pn=v1v2…vn be a path on n vertices, then DPn(vj)>DPn(vk) for 1≤j<k≤⌊n/2⌋.
Lemma 2.3. ([13]) Let G be a non-trivial connected graph on n vertices and let v∈V(G). Suppose that two paths P=vv1v2⋯vk, Q=vu1u2⋯ul of lengths k, l are attached to G by their end vertices at v, respectively, to form Gk,l, as shown in Figure 1. If l≥k≥1, then W(Gk,l)<W(Gk−1,l+1).
It was proved in [11] that W(Pn) is maximum among all trees on n vertices. Since removing of an edge from a connected graph results in an increased Wiener index, it is observed that the Wiener index of a connected graph is less than or equal to the Wiener index of its spanning tree. Thus, W(Pn) is maximum among all connected graphs on n vertices. By D(Pn;s)=n−2s+1 (n≥2s), we have the following theorem.
Theorem 3.1. Let G be a connected graph on n vertices and D(G;s)=n−2s+1, where s is a positive integer and n≥2s. Then W(G)≤W(Pn), and equality holds if and only if G≅Pn.
Let Tin be the tree on n vertices obtained from Pn−1=x1x2⋯xn−1 by attaching a pendent vertex to xi. See Figure 2 for an illustration.
Theorem 3.2. Let G be a connected graph on n vertices and D(G;s)=n−2s, where s is a positive integer and n≥2s+3. Then W(G)≤W(Ts+1n), and equality holds if and only if G≅Ts+1n.
Proof. Let d(L,R)=n−2s, where L={x1,…xs} and R={xn−s,…,xn−1}. Assume P=xsxs+1⋯xn−s is a path of length n−2s connecting L and R in G. Denote M={xs+1,…,xn−s−1} and W=V(G)∖(L∪M∪R)={w}.
Claim. We can choose L and R such that w is adjacent to vertices in M.
By n≥2s+3, w can not be adjacent to both vertices in L and R. If w is only adjacent to vertices in L, then xs+1 must be adjacent to another vertex w′∈L other than xs. Otherwise, the distance between L−xs+w and R would be n−2s+1, a contradiction. Thus, we replace L by L′ and W by W′, where L′=L−w′+w and W′={w′}. The case w is only adjacent to vertices in R and can be analyzed similarly. So, the claim holds.
Case 1. w is only adjacent to the vertices in M.
If w is adjacent to more than one vertex in M, then delete all but one of the edges incident with w. Note that this operation does not change the conditional diameter and increases the Wiener index. So, we assume that w is a pendent vertex. Without loss of generality, assume w is adjacent to xi, where s+1≤i≤n−s−1.
Consider the induced subgraph G[L∪{xs+1}]. First, we transform it to a tree by removing edges. Removing edges in this way does not change the conditional diameter and increases the Wiener index (by removing an edge from a graph, the distance of the two ends of this edge must increase, and the distance of other pairs of vertices does not decrease). Then, we transform it to a path as follows: We take one of the longest paths from {xs+1} and gradually enlarge it to an even longer path by appending the rest of the vertices in L∪{xs+1} to the current end-vertex on the other side of this path, one after another. By Lemma 2.3, each such transformation increases the Wiener index and retains the conditional diameter. Similarly, we can transform G[R∪{xn−s−1}] to a path with one endvertex {xn−s−1}.
Now the graph G is changed to the graph isomorphic to Tin, where s+1≤i≤n−s−1. Let Ts+1n=Tin−xiw+xs+1w. Since Ts+1n−w≅Tin−w≅Pn−1, by Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2, we have W(Tin)≤W(Ts+1n), and equality holds if and only if i=s+1. Thus, W(G)≤W(Ts+1n), and equality holds if and only if G≅W(Ts+1n).
Case 2. w is adjacent to vertices in both L (or R) and M.
We only need to consider the case in which w is adjacent to vertices in both L and M. Since P=xsxs+1⋯xn−s is a shortest path connecting L and R, we obtain that NG(w)∩{xs+1,…,xn−s}⊆{xs+1,xs+2}. Let x′=xs+2 if xs+2∈NG(w) and let x′=xs+1 otherwise.
If x′=xs+2, then consider the induced subgraph G[L∪{xs+1,xs+2,w}]. First, we change it to a tree by removing some edges in E(G[L∪{xs+1,xs+2,w}])∖{xs+1xs+2,xs+2w}. Then, we transform it to a path such that xs+2 is adjacent to one endvertex of this path as follows: We take one of the longest paths from {xs+2} and gradually enlarge it to an even longer path by appending the rest of the vertices in L to the current endvertex on the other side of this path, one after another. Note that xs+2 is still adjacent to vertices xs+1 and w, and one of xs+1 and w must be an endvertex of this path. Now we change G to a graph isomorphic to Ts+2n. By Case 1, we get W(G)≤W(Ts+1n).
If x′=xs+1, then, by a similar argument as above, we can change G to a graph isomorphic to Ts+1n. Thus, W(G)≤W(Ts+1n).
From the arguments above, we obtain that W(G)≤W(Ts+1n), and the equality holds if and only if G≅Ts+1n.
Let Ti,jn be a tree on n vertices obtained from Pn−2=x1x2⋯xn−2 by attaching two pendent vertices to xi and xj, respectively. See Figure 3 for an illustration.
Let Ti(2)n be a tree on n vertices obtained from Pn−2=x1x2⋯xn−2 by attaching the endvertex of a path of order 2 to xi. See Figure 4 for an illustration.
Theorem 3.3. Let G be a connected graph on n vertices and D(G;s)=n−2s−1, where s is a positive integer and n≥2s+5. Then W(G)≤W(Ts+1,n−s−2n), and equality holds if and only if G≅Ts+1,n−s−2n.
Proof. Let d(L,R)=n−2s−1, where L={x1,…xs} and R={xn−s−1,…,xn−2}. Assume P=xsxs+1⋯xn−s−1 is a path of length n−2s−1 connecting L and R. Denote M={xs+1,…,xn−s−2} and W=V(G)∖(L∪M∪R)={w1,w2}.
Case 1. Neither w1 nor w2 is adjacent to vertices in L∪R.
Subcase 1.1. w1w2∉E(G).
Note that NG(wi)⊆{xs+1,⋯,xn−s−2} for i=1,2. If wi is adjacent to more than one vertex in M, then delete all but one of the edges incident with wi, where i∈{1,2}. Note that this operation does not change the conditional diameter and increases the Wiener index. So, we assume that wi is pendent vertex for i=1,2. Without loss of generality, assume that w1 is attached to xa and w2 is attached to xb, where s+1≤a≤b≤n−s−2.
By a similar argument as in the proof of Case 1 in Theorem 3.2, we transform G[L∪{xs+1}] to a path with one endvertex xs+1, and transform G[R∪{xn−s−2}] to a path with one endvertex xn−s−2. That is, we change G to a graph isomorphic to Ta,bn, where s+1≤a≤b≤n−s−2.
Let Ta,n−s−2n=Ta,bn−xbw2+xn−s−2w2, kw1=d(xs+1,xa), and kw2=d(xn−s−2,xb). Since Ta,n−s−2n−w2≅Ta,bn−w2, we have
W(Ta,n−s−2n)−W(Ta,bn)=1+2+⋯+(n−s−2)+2+⋯+(s+1)+(n−s−a)−1−2−⋯−(n−s−2−kw2)−2−⋯−(s+1+kw2)−(n−s−a−kw2)=∑1≤i≤kw2(n−s−2−kw2+i)−∑1≤i≤kw2(s+1+i)+kw2. |
Since n−2s−3−kw2≥0, we have W(Ti,n−m−2n)−W(Ti,jn)≥0, and equality holds if and only if kw2=0.
Let Ts+1,n−s−2n=Ta,n−s−2n−xaw1+xs+1w1. Since Ts+1,n−s−2n−w1≅Ta,n−s−2n−w1, we have
W(Ts+1,n−s−2n)−W(Ta,n−s−2n)=1+2+⋯+(s+1)+2+⋯+(n−s−2)+(n−2s−1)−1−2−⋯−(s+1+kw1)−2−⋯−(n−s−2−kw1)−(n−2s−1−kw1)=−∑1≤i≤kw1(s+1+i)+∑1≤i≤kw1(n−s−2−kw1+i)+kw1. |
By n−2s−3−kw2≥0, we have W(Ts+1,n−s−2n)−W(Ta,n−s−2n)≥0, and equality holds if and only if kw1=0.
In this subcase, we conclude that W(G)≤W(Ts+1,n−s−2n), and equality holds if and only if G≅Ts+1,n−s−2n.
Subcase 1.2. w1w2∈E(G).
If both w1 and w2 have neighbors in M, then by deleting edge w1w2, we reduce this situation to Subcase 1.1. So, we assume that only one of the vertices in W, say w1, has neighbors in M and the other vertex w2 is a pendent vertex adjacent to w1. If w1 has more than one neighbor in W, then delete all but one of the edges incident with w1. Here, the remaining edge satisfies the property that the end other than w1 is farthest to the vertex set {xs+1,xn−s−2}. Assume, without loss of generality, that w1 is attached to xi, where s+2≤i≤n−s−3.
By a similar argument as in the proof of Case 1 in Theorem 3.2, we transform G[L∪{xs+1}] to a path with one endvertex xs+1, and transform G[R∪{xn−s−2}] to a path with one endvertex xn−s−2. That is, we change G to a graph isomorphic to Ti(2)n, where s+2≤i≤n−s−3.
Let T(s+2)(2)n=Ti(2)n−xiw1+xs+2w1 and k′w1=d(xs+2,xi). Since T(s+2)(2)n−w1−w2≅Ti(2)n−w1−w2, we have
W(T(s+1)(2)n)−W(Ti(2)n)=1+2+⋯+(n−s−1)+3+⋯+(s+2)+1+2+⋯+(n−s−2)+2+⋯+(s+1)−1−2−⋯−(n−s−1−k′w1)−3−⋯−(s+2+k′w1)−1−2−⋯−(n−s−2−k′w1)−2−⋯−(s+1+k′w1)=∑1≤j≤k′w1(n−s−1−k′w1+j)−∑1≤j≤k′w1(s+2+j)+∑1≤j≤k′w1(n−s−2−k′w1+j)−∑1≤j≤k′w1(s+1+j). |
Since n−2s−3−k′w1≥0, we have W(T(s+2)(2)n)−W(Ti(2)n)≥0, and equality holds if and only if k′w1=0.
In this subcase, we conclude that W(G)≤W(T(s+2)(2)n), and equality holds if and only if G≅T(s+2)(2)n.
Case 2. Either w1 or w2 are adjacent to vertices in L∪R.
If wi is only adjacent to vertices in L∪R, then we can choose L and R such that wi is adjacent to some vertices in M for i=1,2. Owing to Case 1, we only need to consider three subcases in the following.
Subcase 2.1. Only one of w1 or w2, say, w1 is adjacent to vertices in L∪R.
We only consider the case that w1 is adjacent to vertices in both L and M, and w2 is not adjacent to any vertices in L∪R.
Since P=xsxs+1⋯xn−s−1 is the shortest path connecting L and R, we obtain that NG(w1)∩{xs+1,…,xn−s}⊆{xs+1,xs+2}. Let x′=xs+2 if xs+2∈NG(w1), and let x′=xs+1 otherwise. If x′=xs+2, then by a similar argument as in the proof of Case 2 in Theorem 3.2, we can change G[L∪{xs+1,xs+2,w}] to a path such that xs+2 is still adjacent to vertices xs+1 and w, and one of xs+1 and w1 is an endvertex of this path. If x′=xs+1, then by a similar argument we can change G[L∪{xs+1,w}] to a path such that xs+1 is still adjacent to vertices xs and w1, and one of xs and w1 is an endvertex of this path.
Suppose w2 is adjacent to some vertices in M. Then delete all edges incident with w2 except for one edge joining w2 to a vertex in M. Then, G is changed to a graph isomorphic to Ti,jn. Suppose w2 is only adjacent to w1. Then, G is changed to a graph isomorphic to Ti(2)n.
Subcase 2.2. Both w1 and w2 are adjacent to vertices in L (or R).
We only consider the case that wi is adjacent to vertices in both L and M for i=1,2.
Since P=xsxs+1⋯xn−s−1 is the shortest path connecting L and R, we obtain that NG(wi)∩{xs+1,…,xn−s}⊆{xs+1,xs+2} for i=1,2. Let x′=xs+2 if xs+2∈NG(w1), and let x′=xs+1 otherwise. Let x″=xs+2 if xs+2∈NG(w2), and let x″=xs+1 otherwise. Here we only give the proof when x′=xs+2 and x″=xs+2. Other cases can be proved similarly. We consider the induced subgraph G[L∪{xs+1,xs+2,w1,w2}]. First, we change it to a tree by removing some edges in E(G[L∪{xm+1,xm+2,w1,w2}])∖{xs+1xs+2,xs+2w1,xs+2w2}. Then, we transform it to a tree such that xs+2 is adjacent to two pendent vertices as follows: we take one of the longest paths from xs+2 and gradually enlarge it to an even longer path by appending the rest of the vertices in L to the current endvertex on the other side of this path, one after another. Note that xs+2 is still adjacent to vertices xs+1, w1, and w2, and two of xs+1, w1, and w2 are pendent vertices adjacent to xs+2. Then, G is changed to a graph isomorphic to Ti,jn.
Subcase 2.3. One of w1 or w2, say w1, is adjacent to vertices in L and w2 is adjacent to vertices in R.
Since P=xsxs+1⋯xn−s−1 is the shortest path connecting L and R, we obtain that NG(w1)∩{xs+1,…,xn−s}⊆{xs+1,xs+2}. Let x′=xs+2 if xs+2∈NG(w1), and let x′=xs+1 otherwise. If x′=xs+2, then by a similar argument as in the proof of Case 2 in Theorem 3.2, we can change G[L∪{xs+1,xs+2,w1}] to a path such that xs+2 is still adjacent to vertices xs+1 and w1, and one of xs+1 and w1 is an endvertex of this path. If x′=xs+1, then by a similar argument we can change G[L∪{xs+1,w1}] to a path such that xs+1 is still adjacent to vertices xs and w1, and one of xs and w1 is an endvertex of this path. Similarly, if w2xn−s−3∈E(G), we can change G[R∪{xn−s−3,xn−s−2,w2}] to a path such that xn−s−3 is still adjacent to vertices xn−s−2 and w2, and one of xn−s−2 and w2 is an endvertex of this path. If w2xn−s−3∉E(G), we can change G[R∪{xn−s−2,w2}] to a path such that xn−s−2 is still adjacent to vertices xn−s−1 and w2, and one of xn−s−1 and w2 is an endvertex of this path. Thus, G is changed to a graph isomorphic to Ti,jn.
All cases lead to W(G)≤W(Ts+1,n−s−2n) or W(G)≤W(T(s+2)(2)n). So, we only need to compare W(Ts+1,n−s−2n) and W(T(s+2)(2)n). Since W(Ts+1,n−s−2n)−W(T(s+2)(2)n)=12n2−(s+32)n+s2+7s>0, we obtain that W(G)≤W(Ts+1,n−s−2n), and equality holds if and only if G≅Ts+1,n−s−2n. The proof is completed.
In this paper, we characterize the graphs with the maximum Wiener index among all graphs with conditional diameter D(G;s)=n−2s−c (−1≤c≤1), which extends partial results in [18].
Supervision, Y.T.; writing—original draft preparation, J.A.; writing—review and editing, Y.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
The research is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (12261086).
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
[1] |
M. L. Bai, Y. Z. Tian, Wiener index of the direct product of a path and a generalized petersen graph, J. Xinjiang Univ., 41 (2024), 218–227. https://doi.org/10.13568/j.cnki.651094.651316.2023.04.13.0002 doi: 10.13568/j.cnki.651094.651316.2023.04.13.0002
![]() |
[2] | J. A. Bondy, U. S. R. Murty, Graph theory, Berlin: Springer, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-970-5 |
[3] |
Q. Cai, T. Li, Y. Shi, H. Wang, Sum of weighted distances in trees, Discrete Appl. Math., 257 (2019), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2018.08.033 doi: 10.1016/j.dam.2018.08.033
![]() |
[4] |
S. Cambie, An asymptotic resolution of a problem of Plesník, J. Comb. Theory. Ser. B, 145 (2020), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jctb.2020.06.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jctb.2020.06.003
![]() |
[5] |
S. Cambie, Extremal total distance of graphs of given radius I, J. Graph Theory, 97 (2021), 104–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgt.22644 doi: 10.1002/jgt.22644
![]() |
[6] |
S. Cambie, Corrigendum on Wiener index, Zagreb Indices and Harary index of Eulerian graphs, Discrete Appl. Math., 347 (2024), 139–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2024.01.011 doi: 10.1016/j.dam.2024.01.011
![]() |
[7] |
K. C. Das, M. J. Nadjafi-Arani, On maximum Wiener index of trees and graphs with given radius, J. Comb. Optim., 34 (2017), 574–587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10878-016-0092-y doi: 10.1007/s10878-016-0092-y
![]() |
[8] |
E. DeLaViña, B. Waller, Spanning trees with many leaves and average distances, Electron. J. Comb., 15 (2008). https://doi.org/10.37236/757 doi: 10.37236/757
![]() |
[9] |
A. A. Dobrynin, R. Entringer, I. Gutman, Wiener index of trees: Theory and applications, Acta Appl. Math., 66 (2001), 211–249. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010767517079 doi: 10.1023/a:1010767517079
![]() |
[10] |
Y. L. Jin, X. D. Zhang, On the two conjectures of the Wiener index, arXiv, 2013. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1304.0873 doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1304.0873
![]() |
[11] |
M. Knor, R. Škrekovski, A. Tepeh, Mathematical aspects of Wiener index, arXiv, 2015, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1510.00800 doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1510.00800
![]() |
[12] |
M. Knor, R. Škrekovski, A. Tepeh, Selected topics on Wiener index, arXiv, 2023, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.11405 doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.11405
![]() |
[13] | H. Liu, X. Pan, On the Wiener index of trees with fixed diameter, MATCH Commun. Math. Comput. Chem., 60 (2008), 85–94. |
[14] |
S. Mukwembi, T. Vertík, Wiener index of trees of given order and diameter at most 6, Bull. Aust. Math. Soc., 89 (2014), 379–396. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0004972713000816 doi: 10.1017/S0004972713000816
![]() |
[15] |
J. Plesník, On the sum of all distances in a graph or digraph, J. Graph Theory, 8 (1984), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgt.3190080102 doi: 10.1002/jgt.3190080102
![]() |
[16] |
A. V. Sills, H. Wang, On the maximal Wiener index and related questions, Discrete Appl. Math., 160 (2012), 1615–1623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2012.03.002 doi: 10.1016/j.dam.2012.03.002
![]() |
[17] | D. Stevanović, Maximizing Wiener index of graphs with fixed maximum degree, MATCH Commun. Math. Comput. Chem., 60 (2008), 71–83. |
[18] |
Q. Sun, B. Ikica, R. Škrekovski, V. Vukašinović, Graphs with a given diameter that maximise the Wiener index, Appl. Math. Comput., 356 (2019), 438–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2019.03.025 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2019.03.025
![]() |
[19] | S. Wang, X. Guo, Trees with extremal Wiener indices, MATCH Commun. Math. Comput. Chem., 60 (2008), 609–622. |
[20] |
H. Wiener, Structural determination of paraffin boiling points, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 69 (1947), 17–20. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja01193a005 doi: 10.1021/ja01193a005
![]() |
[21] | K. Xu, M. Liu, K. C. Das, I. Gutman, B. Furtula, A survey on graphs extremal with respect to distance-based topological indices, MATCH Commun. Math. Comput. Chem., 2014. https://scidar.kg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/17378 |
[22] |
X. D. Zhang, Y. Liu, M. X. Han, Maximum Wiener index of trees with given degree sequence, arXiv, 2009, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0907.3772 doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0907.3772
![]() |