An antimagic labeling of a directed graph $D$ with $n$ vertices and $m$ arcs is a bijection from the set of arcs of $D$ to the integers $\{1, \cdots, m\}$ such that all $n$ oriented vertex sums are pairwise distinct, where an oriented vertex sum is the sum of labels of all arcs entering that vertex minus the sum of labels of all arcs leaving it. A graph $G$ has an antimagic orientation if it has an orientation which admits an antimagic labeling. Hefetz, M{ü}tze, and Schwartz conjectured that every connected graph admits an antimagic orientation. In this paper, we show that every bipartite graph without both isolated and degree 2 vertices admits an antimagic orientation and every graph $G$ with $δ(G)\ge 33$ admits an antimagic orientation. Our proof relies on a newly developed structural property of bipartite graphs, which might be of independent interest.
An antimagic labeling of a directed graph $D$ with $m$ arcs is a bijection from the set of arcs of $D$ to $\{1,\dots,m\}$ such that all oriented vertex sums of vertices in $D$ are pairwise distinct, where the oriented vertex sum of a vertex $u$ is the sum of labels of all arcs entering $u$ minus the sum of labels of all arcs leaving $u$. Hefetz, Mütze, and Schwartz conjectured that every connected graph admits an antimagic orientation, where an antimagic orientation of a graph $G$ is an orientation of $G$ which has an antimagic labeling. We use a constructive technique to prove that caterpilla…
An antimagic labeling of a directed graph $D$ with $n$ vertices and $m$ arcs is a bijection from the set of arcs of $D$ to the integers $\{1, \cdots, m\}$ such that all $n$ oriented vertex sums are pairwise distinct, where an oriented vertex sum is the sum of labels of all arcs entering that vertex minus the sum of labels of all arcs leaving it. An undirected graph $G$ is said to have an antimagic orientation if $G$ has an orientation which admits an antimagic labeling. Hefetz, M{ü}tze, and Schwartz conjectured that every connected undirected graph admits an antimagic orientation. In this pape…
A labeling of a digraph $D$ with $m$ arcs is a bijection from the set of arcs of $D$ to $\{1, \ldots, m\}$. A labeling of $D$ is antimagic if no two vertices in $D$ have the same vertex-sum, where the vertex-sum of a vertex $u\in V(D)$ for a labeling is the sum of labels of all arcs entering $u$ minus the sum of labels of all arcs leaving $u$. Motivated by the conjecture of Hartsfield and Ringel from 1990 on antimagic labelings of graphs, Hefetz, Mütze, and Schwartz [On antimagic directed graphs, J Graph Theory 64 (2010) 219--232] initiated the study of antimagic labelings of digraphs, and con…
An antimagic labeling of a digraph $D$ with $n$ vertices and $m$ arcs is a bijection from the set of arcs of $D$ to $\{1,2,\cdots,m\}$ such that all $n$ oriented vertex-sums are pairwise distinct, where the oriented vertex-sum of a vertex is the sum of labels of all arcs entering that vertex minus the sum of labels of all arcs leaving it. A graph $G$ admits an antimagic orientation if $G$ has an orientation $D$ such that $D$ has an antimagic labeling. Hefetz, M{ü}tze and Schwartz conjectured every connected graph admits an antimagic orientation. In this paper, we support this conjecture by pro…
Motivated by the conjecture of Hartsfield and Ringel on antimagic labelings of undirected graphs, Hefetz, Mütze, and Schwartz initiated the study of antimagic labelings of digraphs in 2010. Very recently, it has been conjectured in [Antimagic orientation of even regular graphs, J. Graph Theory, 90 (2019), 46-53.] that every graph admits an antimagtic orientation, which is a strengthening of an earlier conjecture of Hefetz, Mütze and Schwartz. In this paper, we prove that every $2d$-regular graph (not necessarily connected) admits an antimagic orientation, where $d\ge2$. Together with known res…
A $labeling$ of a digraph $D$ with $m$ arcs is a bijection from the set of arcs of $D$ to $\{1,2,\ldots,m\}$. A labeling of $D$ is $antimagic$ if no two vertices in $D$ have the same vertex-sum, where the vertex-sum of a vertex $u \in V(D)$ for a labeling is the sum of labels of all arcs entering $u$ minus the sum of labels of all arcs leaving $u$. An antimagic orientation $D$ of a graph $G$ is $antimagic$ if $D$ has an antimagic labeling. Hefetz, M$\ddot{u}$tze and Schwartz in [J. Graph Theory 64(2010)219-232] raised the question: Does every graph admits an antimagic orientation? It had been …
Given a digraph $D$ with $m $ arcs, a bijection $τ: A(D)\rightarrow \{1, 2, \ldots, m\}$ is an antimagic labeling of $D$ if no two vertices in $D$ have the same vertex-sum, where the vertex-sum of a vertex $u $ in $D$ under $τ$ is the sum of labels of all arcs entering $u$ minus the sum of labels of all arcs leaving $u$. We say $(D, τ)$ is an antimagic orientation of a graph $G$ if $D$ is an orientation of $G$ and $τ$ is an antimagic labeling of $D$. Motivated by the conjecture of Hartsfield and Ringel from 1990 on antimagic labelings of graphs, Hefetz, Mütze, and Schwartz in 2010 initiated th…
Let $m\ge 1$ be an integer and $G$ be a graph with $m$ edges. We say that $G$ has an antimagic orientation if $G$ has an orientation $D$ and a bijection $τ:A(D)\rightarrow \{1,2,\cdots,m\}$ such that no two vertices in $D$ have the same vertex-sum under $τ$, where the vertex-sum of a vertex $u$ in $D$ under $τ$ is the sum of labels of all arcs entering $u$ minus the sum of labels of all arcs leaving $u$. Hefetz, Mütze and Schwartz [J. Graph Theory, 64: 219-232, 2010] conjectured that every connected graph admits an antimagic orientation. The conjecture was confirmed for certain classes of grap…
A simple graph $G$ is said to admit an antimagic orientation if there exist an orientation on the edges of $G$ and a bijection from $E(G)$ to $\{1,2,\ldots,|E(G)|\}$ such that the vertex sums of vertices are pairwise distinct, where the vertex sum of a vertex is defined to be the sum of the labels of the in-edges minus that of the out-edges incident to the vertex. It was conjectured by Hefetz, Mütze, and Schwartz~\cite{HMS10} in 2010 that every connected simple graph admits an antimagic orientation. In this paper, we prove that the Mycielski construction and the corona product for graphs with …
Given a digraph $D$ with $m$ arcs and a bijection $τ: A(D)\rightarrow \{1, 2, \ldots, m\}$, we say $(D, τ)$ is an antimagic orientation of a graph $G$ if $D$ is an orientation of $G$ and no two vertices in $D$ have the same vertex-sum under $τ$, where the vertex-sum of a vertex $u$ in $D$ under $τ$ is the sum of labels of all arcs entering $u$ minus the sum of labels of all arcs leaving $u$. Hefetz, Mütze, and Schwartz in 2010 initiated the study of antimagic orientations of graphs, and conjectured that every connected graph admits an antimagic orientation. This conjecture seems hard, and few …
Let $m\ge 1$ be an integer and $G$ be a graph with $m$ edges. We say that $G$ has an antimagic orientation if $G$ has an orientation $D$ and a bijection $τ:A(D)\rightarrow \{1,2,\ldots,m\}$ such that no two vertices in $D$ have the same vertex-sum under $τ$, where the vertex-sum of a vertex $v$ in $D$ under $τ$ is the sum of labels of all arcs entering $v$ minus the sum of labels of all arcs leaving $v$. Hefetz, Mütze and Schwartz [J. Graph Theory, 64: 219-232, 2010] conjectured that every connected graph admits an antimagic orientation. The conjecture was confirmed for certain classes of grap…
An edge labeling of a connected graph $G = (V, E)$ is said to be local antimagic if it is a bijection $f:E \to\{1,\ldots ,|E|\}$ such that for any pair of adjacent vertices $x$ and $y$, $f^+(x)\not= f^+(y)$, where the induced vertex label $f^+(x)= \sum f(e)$, with $e$ ranging over all the edges incident to $x$. The local antimagic chromatic number of $G$, denoted by $χ_{la}(G)$, is the minimum number of distinct induced vertex labels over all local antimagic labelings of $G$. In this paper, we characterize $s$-bridge graphs with local antimagic chromatic number 2.
An {\em antimagic labeling} of a graph with $m$ edges and $n$ vertices is a bijection from the set of edges to the integers $1,...,m$ such that all $n$ vertex sums are pairwise distinct, where a vertex sum is the sum of labels of all edges incident with the same vertex. A graph is called {\em antimagic} if it has an antimagic labeling. A conjecture of Ringel (see \cite{HaRi}) states that every connected graph, but $K_2$, is antimagic. Our main result validates this conjecture for graphs having minimum degree $Ω(\log n)$. The proof combines probabilistic arguments with simple tools from analyti…
Given a graph $G=(V,E)$ and a colouring $f:E\mapsto \mathbb N$, the induced colour of a vertex $v$ is the sum of the colours at the edges incident with $v$. If all the induced colours of vertices of $G$ are distinct, the colouring is called antimagic. If $G$ has a bijective antimagic colouring $f:E\mapsto \{1,\dots,|E|\}$, the graph $G$ is called antimagic. A conjecture of Hartsfield and Ringel states that all connected graphs other than $K_2$ are antimagic. Alon, Kaplan, Lev, Roddity and Yuster proved this conjecture for graphs with minimum degree at least $c \log |V|$ for some constant $c$; …
An edge labeling of a graph $G = (V, E)$ is said to be local antimagic if it is a bijection $f:E \to\{1,\ldots ,|E|\}$ such that for any pair of adjacent vertices $x$ and $y$, $f^+(x)\not= f^+(y)$, where the induced vertex label of $x$ is $f^+(x)= \sum_{e\in E(x)} f(e)$ ($E(x)$ is the set of edges incident to $x$). The local antimagic chromatic number of $G$, denoted by $χ_{la}(G)$, is the minimum number of distinct induced vertex labels over all local antimagic labelings of $G$. In this paper, several sufficient conditions to determine the local antimagic chromatic number of the join of graph…
An \emph{antimagic labeling} of a finite undirected simple graph with $m$ edges and $n$ vertices is a bijection from the set of edges to the integers $1,...,m$ such that all $n$ vertex sums are pairwise distinct, where a vertex sum is the sum of labels of all edges incident with the same vertex. A graph is called \emph{antimagic} if it has an antimagic labeling. In 1990, Hartsfield and Ringel conjectured that every connected graph, but $K_2$, is antimagic. In 2004, N. Alon et al showed that this conjecture is true for $n$-vertex graphs with minimum degree $Ω(\log n)$. They also proved that com…
An edge labeling of a connected graph $G = (V, E)$ is said to be local antimagic if it is a bijection $f:E \to\{1,\ldots ,|E|\}$ such that for any pair of adjacent vertices $x$ and $y$, $f^+(x)\not= f^+(y)$, where the induced vertex label $f^+(x)= \sum f(e)$, with $e$ ranging over all the edges incident to $x$. The local antimagic chromatic number of $G$, denoted by $χ_{la}(G)$, is the minimum number of distinct induced vertex labels over all local antimagic labelings of $G$. In this paper, several sufficient conditions for $χ_{la}(H)\le χ_{la}(G)$ are obtained, where $H$ is obtained from $G$ …
An edge labeling of a connected graph $G = (V, E)$ is said to be local antimagic if it is a bijection $f:E \to\{1,\ldots ,|E|\}$ such that for any pair of adjacent vertices $x$ and $y$, $f^+(x)\not= f^+(y)$, where the induced vertex label $f^+(x)= \sum f(e)$, with $e$ ranging over all the edges incident to $x$. The local antimagic chromatic number of $G$, denoted by $χ_{la}(G)$, is the minimum number of distinct induced vertex labels over all local antimagic labelings of $G$. In this paper, the sharp lower bound of the local antimagic chromatic number of a graph with cut-vertices given by pend…
Let $G = (V,E)$ be a connected simple graph of order $p$ and size $q$. A graph $G$ is called local antimagic if $G$ admits a local antimagic labeling. A bijection $f : E \to \{1,2,\ldots,q\}$ is called a local antimagic labeling of $G$ if for any two adjacent vertices $u$ and $v$, we have $f^+(u) \ne f^+(v)$, where $f^+(u) = \sum_{e\in E(u)} f(e)$, and $E(u)$ is the set of edges incident to $u$. Thus, any local antimagic labeling induces a proper vertex coloring of $G$ if vertex $v$ is assigned the color $f^+(v)$. The local antimagic chromatic number, denoted $χ_{la}(G)$, is the minimum number…
Let $G = (V,E)$ be a connected simple graph of order $p$ and size $q$. A graph $G$ is called local antimagic (total) if $G$ admits a local antimagic (total) labeling. A bijection $g : E \to \{1,2,\ldots,q\}$ is called a local antimagic labeling of $G$ if for any two adjacent vertices $u$ and $v$, we have $g^+(u) \ne g^+(v)$, where $g^+(u) = \sum_{e\in E(u)} g(e)$, and $E(u)$ is the set of edges incident to $u$. Similarly, a bijection $f:V(G)\cup E(G)\to \{1,2,\ldots,p+q\}$ is called a local antimagic total labeling of $G$ if for any two adjacent vertices $u$ and $v$, we have $w_f(u)\ne w_f(v)$…
An edge labeling of a connected graph $G = (V, E)$ is said to be local antimagic if it is a bijection $f:E \to\{1,\ldots ,|E|\}$ such that for any pair of adjacent vertices $x$ and $y$, $f^+(x)\not= f^+(y)$, where the induced vertex label $f^+(x)= \sum f(e)$, with $e$ ranging over all the edges incident to $x$. The local antimagic chromatic number of $G$, denoted by $χ_{la}(G)$, is the minimum number of distinct induced vertex labels over all local antimagic labelings of $G$. In this paper, we give counterexamples to the lower bound of $χ_{la}(G \vee O_2)$ that was obtained in [Local antimagic…
Let $G = (V, E)$ be a finite simple undirected graph without $K_2$ components. A bijection $f : E \rightarrow \{1, 2,\cdots, |E|\}$ is called a {\bf local antimagic labeling} if for any two adjacent vertices $u$ and $v$, they have different vertex sums, i.e. $w(u) \neq w(v)$, where the vertex sum $w(u) = \sum_{e \in E(u)} f(e)$, and $E(u)$ is the set of edges incident to $u$. Thus any local antimagic labeling induces a proper vertex coloring of $G$ where the vertex $v$ is assigned the color(vertex sum) $w(v)$. The {\bf local antimagic chromatic number} $χ_{la}(G)$ is the minimum number of colo…
A {\it local antimagic labeling} of a connected graph $G$ with at least three vertices, is a bijection $f:E(G) \rightarrow \{1,2,\ldots , |E(G)|\}$ such that for any two adjacent vertices $u$ and $v$ of $G$, the condition $ω_{f}(u) \neq ω_{f}(v)$ holds; where $ω_{f}(u)=\sum _{x\in N(u)} f(xu)$. Assigning $ω_{f}(u)$ to $u$ for each vertex $u$ in $V(G)$, induces naturally a proper vertex coloring of $G$; and $|f|$ denotes the number of colors appearing in this proper vertex coloring. The {\it local antimagic chromatic number} of $G$, denoted by $χ_{la}(G)$, is defined as the minimum of $|f|$, wh…
A graph $G = (V, E)$ of order $p$ and size $q$ is said to be local antimagic if there exists a bijection $g:E(G) \to \{1,2,\ldots,q\}$ such that for any pair of adjacent vertices $u$ and $v$, $g^+(u)\ne g^+(v)$, where $g^+(u)=\sum_{uv\in E(G)} g(uv)$ is the induced vertex color of $u$ under $g$. We also say $G$ is local antimagic total if there exists a bijection $f: V\cup E \to\{1,2,\ldots ,p+q\}$ such that for any pair of adjacent vertices $u$ and $v$, $w(u)\not= w(v)$, where $w(u)= f(u) +\sum_{uv\in E(G)} f(uv)$ is the induced vertex weight of $u$ under $f$. The local antimagic (and local a…
An edge labeling of a connected graph $G = (V,E)$ is said to be local antimagic if it is a bijection $f : E \to \{1, . . . , |E|\}$ such that for any pair of adjacent vertices $x$ and $y$, $f^+(x) \ne f^+(y)$, where the induced vertex label $f^+(x) = \sum f(e)$, with $e$ ranging over all the edges incident to $x$. The local antimagic chromatic number of $G$, denoted by $χ_{la}(G)$, is the minimum number of distinct induced vertex labels over all local antimagic labelings of $G$. In this paper, we first show that a $d$-leg spider graph has $d+1\le χ_{la}\le d+2$. We then obtain many sufficient …
Let $G = (V,E)$ be a connected simple graph of order $p$ and size $q$. A graph $G$ is called local antimagic if $G$ admits a local antimagic labeling. A bijection $f : E \to \{1,2,\ldots,q\}$ is called a local antimagic labeling of $G$ if for any two adjacent vertices $u$ and $v$, we have $f^+(u) \ne f^+(v)$, where $f^+(u) = \sum_{e\in E(u)} f(e)$, and $E(u)$ is the set of edges incident to $u$. Thus, any local antimagic labeling induces a proper vertex coloring of $G$ if vertex $v$ is assigned the color $f^+(v)$. The local antimagic chromatic number, denoted $χ_{la}(G)$, is the minimum number…
Let $G = (V,E)$ be a connected simple graph. A bijection $f: E \rightarrow \{1,2,\ldots,|E|\}$ is called a local antimagic labeling of $G$ if $f^+(u) \neq f^+(v)$ holds for any two adjacent vertices $u$ and $v$, where $f^+(u) = \sum_{e\in E(u)} f(e)$ and $E(u$) is the set of edges incident to $u$. A graph $G$ is called local antimagic if $G$ admits at least a local antimagic labeling. The local antimagic chromatic number, denoted $χ_{la}(G)$, is the minimum number of induced colors taken over local antimagic labelings of $G$. Let $G$ and $H$ be two disjoint graphs. The graph $G[H]$ is obtained…
An edge labeling of a connected graph $G = (V, E)$ is said to be local antimagic if it is a bijection $f:E \to\{1,\ldots ,|E|\}$ such that for any pair of adjacent vertices $x$ and $y$, $f^+(x)\not= f^+(y)$, where the induced vertex label $f^+(x)= \sum f(e)$, with $e$ ranging over all the edges incident to $x$. The local antimagic chromatic number of $G$, denoted by $χ_{la}(G)$, is the minimum number of distinct induced vertex labels over all local antimagic labelings of $G$. Let $χ(G)$ be the chromatic number of $G$. In this paper, sharp upper and lower bounds of $χ_{la}(G)$ for $G$ with pend…
An edge labeling of a connected graph $G = (V, E)$ is said to be local antimagic if it is a bijection $f:E \to\{1,\ldots ,|E|\}$ such that for any pair of adjacent vertices $x$ and $y$, $f^+(x)\not= f^+(y)$, where the induced vertex label $f^+(x)= \sum f(e)$, with $e$ ranging over all the edges incident to $x$. The local antimagic chromatic number of $G$, denoted by $χ_{la}(G)$, is the minimum number of distinct induced vertex labels over all local antimagic labelings of $G$. In this paper, we (i) give a sufficient condition for a graph with one pendant to have $χ_{la}\ge 3$. A necessary and s…
The local antimagic (total) chromatic numbers of firecracker graphs and edge-corona product graphs
College of Mathematics and System Sciences, Xinjiang University（新疆大学数学与系统科学学院）；School of Mathematical Sciences Xinjiang Normal University（新疆师范大学数学科学学院）
Given a simple undirected graph $G$, an orientation of $G$ is to assign every edge of $G$ a direction. Borradaile et al gave a greedy algorithm SC-Path-Reversal (in polynomial time) which finds a strongly connected orientation that minimizes the maximum indegree, and conjectured that SC-Path-Reversal is indeed optimal for the "minimizing the lexicographic order" objective as well. In this note, we give a positive answer to the conjecture, that is we show that the algorithm SC-PATH-REVERSAL finds a strongly connected orientation that minimizes the lexicographic order of indegrees.
Hefetz, Mütze, and Schwartz conjectured that every connected undirected graph admits an antimagic orientation. In this paper we support the analogous question for distance magic labeling. Let $Γ$ be an Abelian group of order $n$. A \textit{directed $Γ$-distance magic labeling} of an oriented graph $\vec{G} = (V,A)$ of order $n$ is a bijection $\vec{l}:V \rightarrow Γ$ with the property that there is a \textit{magic constant} $μ\in Γ$ such that for every $x \in V(G)$ $ w(x) = \sum_{y \in N^{+}(x)}\vec{l}(y) - \sum_{y \in N^{-}(x)} \vec{l}(y) = μ. $ In this paper we provide an infinite family of…
We show that the minimum number of orientations of the edges of the n-vertex complete graph having the property that every triangle is made cyclic in at least one of them is $\lceil\log_2(n-1)\rceil$. More generally, we also determine the minimum number of orientations of $K_n$ such that at least one of them orients some specific $k$-cycles cyclically on every $k$-element subset of the vertex set. The questions answered by these results were motivated by an analogous problem of Vera T. Sós concerning triangles and $3$-edge-colorings. Some variants of the problem are also considered.
