D-irregularity strength of a graph

Faisal Susanto1, Rinovia Simanjuntak2, Edy Tri Baskoro2
1Doctoral Program of Mathematics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia
2Combinatorial Mathematics Research Group, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia Center for Research Collaboration on Graph Theory and Combinatorics, Indonesia

Abstract

We initiate to study a D-irregular labeling, which generalizes both non-inclusive and inclusive d-distance irregular labeling of graphs. Let G=(V(G),E(G)) be a graph, D a set of distances, and k a positive integer. A mapping φ from V(G) to the set of positive integers {1,2,,k} is called a D-irregular k-labeling of G if every two distinct vertices have distinct weights, where the weight of a vertex x is defined as the sum of labels of vertices whose distance from x belongs to D. The least integer k for which G admits a D-irregular labeling is the D-irregularity strength of G and denoted by sD(G). In this paper, we establish several fundamental properties on D-irregularity strength for arbitrary graphs. We also determine this parameter exactly for families of graphs with small diameter or small maximum degree.

Keywords: Graph labeling, D-irregular k-labeling, D-irregularity strength, Distance

1. Introduction

Throughout the paper, only undirected simple finite graphs are considered. For undefined terminology and notation, we follow [8]. Let G be a graph. We will denote by V(G) and E(G) the vertex and edge set of G, respectively. The distance between two vertices x,yV(G) will be denoted by d(x,y).

Graph labeling has been an intriguing topic, extensively studied over the last six decades. To date, over 350 graph labelings techniques have been developed in over 3600 papers [11], one of which is a distance antimagic labeling, firstly established by Kamatchi and Arumugam [14]. A bijection φ:V(G){1,2,,|V(G)|} is said to be a distance antimagic labeling of a graph G if the vertex weights, given by wt(x)=zN(x)φ(z), are all distinct, where N(x), the open neighborhood of x, is the set of all vertices adjacent to x. A distance antimagic graph is a graph that has a distance antimagic labeling.

Simanjuntak et al. [16] introduced a more generalized concept, called a D-antimagic labeling, where D is a non-empty subset of the set {0,1,,diam(G)}. Here, the difference is that the weight of a vertex x is now defined as wt(x)=zND(x)φ(z), where ND(x)={z:d(x,z)D} is the D-neighborhood of x. A graph that admits a D-antimagic labeling is called D-antimagic. Notably, a {1}-antimagic graph is corresponds to a distance antimagic graph. Some graph families have been proved to be D-antimagic, among others, see [9,12,13,14,16,17,24].

Instead of looking at bijection type labelings, Chartrand et al. [7] considered an edge k-labeling φ:E(G){1,2,,k} of a graph G, where distinct edges may receive an identical label, such that the vertex weights, wt(x)=xyE(G)φ(xy), are all distinct. They named such labelings irregular assignments and the irregularity strength, s(G), is the minimum positive integer k such that G has an irregular assignment using labels not exceeding k. This topic has gained significant interest, with numerous papers published; see [2,3,15] for some recent results.

Combining distance-based labelings and irregular assignments, Slamin [18] introduced a non-inclusive distance irregular k-labeling of a graph G as a mapping φ:V(G){1,2,,k} such that for every two distinct vertices x,yV(G) there is wt(x)wt(y), where wt(x)=zN(x)φ(z), is the weight of a vertex x. The non-inclusive distance irregularity strength, dis(G), of G is the smallest integer k such that G has a non-inclusive distance irregular labeling. There are not many graphs whose non-inclusive distance irregularity strengths are known. Among those that are known include paths, complete graphs, cycles, wheels, fan and book graphs [5,18], disjoint union of paths, suns, helms and friendships [20].

Later on, Bača et al. [4] modified such a labeling and introduced an inclusive distance irregular labeling of graphs. In this case, the label of the vertex is also included in the computation of its vertex weight, while the non-inclusive is not. Furthermore, the two labelings were generalized by Bong et al. [6] to non-inclusive and inclusive d-distance irregular labelings, where d is an integer arbitrarily taken from 1 up to the diameter of the graph. A (non-)inclusive 1-distance irregular labeling is also called a (non-)inclusive distance irregular labeling. For more information on these subjects one can see [19,21,22,23].

In this paper, we propose a new invariant, called a D-irregular labeling, which generalizes the previous labelings mentioned in [4,16,18]. This generalization is analogous to D-antimagic labelings by Simanjuntak et al. [16]. The formal definition is provided below.

Definition 1.1. Let G=(V(G),E(G)) be a graph with diameter diam(G). For a non-empty set of distances D{0,1,,diam(G)} and a positive integer k, a function φ:V(G){1,2,,k} is called a D-irregular k-labeling of G if wt(x)wt(y) for every two distinct vertices x,yV(G), where the weight of a vertex x is defined as wt(x)=zND(x)φ(z).

We set wt(x)=0 if ND(x)=. The D-irregularity strength of G, denoted by sD(G), is the minimum k such that G admits a D-irregular labeling. If such an integer k does not exist then we define sD(G)=.

In a case when G is disconnected, we have that diam(G)=, and D{0,1,}. Suppose that G1,G2,,Gm, m2, be the components of G,max1imdiam(Gi)=, and DD{+1,+2,}. Then sD(G)=sDD(G). Moreover, from Definition 1.1, it follows that

  1. A {1}-irregular labeling is a non-inclusive distance irregular labeling.

  2. A {0,1}-irregular labeling is an inclusive distance irregular labeling.

  3. For d{1,2,,diam(G)}, a {1,2,,d}-irregular labeling is a non-inclusive d-distance irregular labeling.

  4. For d{1,2,,diam(G)}, a {0,1,,d}-irregular labeling is an inclusive d-distance irregular labeling.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we present fundamental properties of D-irregularity strength for arbitrary graphs. In Section 3, we compute the exact values on this parameter for certain graphs with small diameter. Section 4 addresses graphs with small maximum degree. Finally, Section 5 presents concluding remarks.

2. Basic properties

We start with the following theorem which provides the necessary and sufficient conditions for a graph to possess finite D-irregularity strength.

Theorem 2.1. Let G be a graph. Then sD(G)= if and only if there exist two distinct vertices x,yV(G) such that ND(x)=ND(y). Moreover, if sD(G)< then sD(G)2|V(G)|1.

Proof. Let x,y be two vertices of G with ND(x)=ND(y). Then, in any vertex labeling φ of G, wt(x)=zND(x)φ(z)=zND(y)φ(z)=wt(y), meaning that φ can not be D-irregular.

Now suppose that ND(x)ND(y) for every two distinct vertices x,yV(G). Let us denote the vertices of G arbitrarily by the symbols x1,x2,,x|V(G)|. Define a vertex (2|V(G)|1)-labeling φ of G as follows: φ(xi)=2i1for i=1,2,,|V(G)|. We define a labeling β such that βij={1if xiND(xj),0if xiND(xj), where i=1,2,,|V(G)| and j=1,2,,|V(G)|. Then, (1)wt(xj)=xiND(xj)φ(xi)=i: xiND(xj)2i1=i=1|V(G)|βij2i1.

To prove that all the vertex weights are distinct, it suffices to show that the sums i=1|V(G)|βij2i1 are all distinct for j=1,2,,|V(G)|. However, this is evident if we consider that the ordered |V(G)|-tuple (β1j,β2j,,β|V(G)|j) corresponds to the binary code representation of the sum (1). Because ND(x)ND(y) for every two distinct vertices x,yV(G) we can get that the |V(G)|-tuples are distinct for distinct vertices. Hence sD(G)2|V(G)|1◻

In a non-trivial graph G, it is evident that if D={0,1,,diam(G)} then ND(x)=V(G)=ND(y) for any two vertices x,yV(G), and so by Theorem 2.1 G has no D-irregular labeling. Hence, the next corollary holds.

Corollary 2.2. . Let G be a non-trivial graph. Then s{0,1,,diam(G)}(G)=.

For a graph G and a set of distances D, the complement of D, denoted by Dc, is a set in which DDc={0,1,,diam(G)} and DDc=. In the next theorem, we give a relationship between D-irregularity strength and Dc-irregularity strength of graphs.

Theorem 2.3. Let G be a non-empty graph. Then

  1. sD(G)= if and only if sDc(G)=.

  2. If G is connected and sD(G)< then sDc(G)=sD(G).

  3. Let G be a disconnected graph with components G1,G2,,Gm for m2, and sD(G)<. If there exists a D-irregular sD(G)-labeling φ of G with the property that wt(x)wt(y)zV(Gi)φ(z)zV(Gj)φ(z) for every two distinct vertices xV(Gi) and yV(Gj), ij, then sDc(G)sD(G).

Proof. (a) If sD(G)= then by Theorem 2.1 there exist two distinct vertices x,yV(G) such that ND(x)=ND(y). If G is connected then NDc(x)=N{0,1,,diam(G)}D(x)=V(G)ND(x)=V(G)ND(y)=N{0,1,,diam(G)}D(y)=NDc(y), and so sDc(G)= by Theorem 2.1.

Next, let G be disconnected with components G1,G2,,Gm for some m2. If x,yV(Gi) for some i, then NDc(x)=N{0,1,}D(x)=N({0,1,,diam(Gi)}D){diam(Gi)+1,diam(Gi)+2,}(x)=N{0,1,,diam(Gi)}D(x)=V(Gi)ND(x)=V(Gi)ND(y)=N{0,1,,diam(Gi)}D(y)=N({0,1,,diam(Gi)}D){diam(Gi)+1,diam(Gi)+2,}(y)=N{0,1,}D(y)=NDc(y), thus sDc(G)= by Theorem 2.1. If xV(Gi) and yV(Gj) with diam(Gi)diam(Gj) for ij, then ND(x)=ND(y)=, and so D{diam(Gi)+1,diam(Gi)+2,}. As G is a non-empty graph, we may assume that Gi contains at least two vertices. Indeed, for every two distinct vertices x,zV(Gi), NDc(x)=NDc(z)=N{0,1,}D(z)=N({0,1,,diam(Gi)}D){diam(Gi)+1,diam(Gi)+2,}(z)=N{0,1,,diam(Gi)}(z)=V(Gi), hence sDc(G)= by Theorem 2.1.

Conversely, if sDc(G)=, similar reasoning shows that sD(G)=.

(b) Let G be connected and sD(G)<. Let φ be a D-irregular sD(G)-labeling of G. We define a new vertex labeling φ of G in such a way that φ(x)=φ(x)for xV(G).

We show that φ is a Dc-irregular sD(G)-labeling of G.

Evidently φ(x)sD(G) for all xV(G). For the vertex weights under the labeling φ we have wt(x)=zNDc(x)φ(z)=zN{0,1,,diam(G)}D(x)φ(z)=zV(Gi)φ(z)zND(x)φ(z).

Note that the sums zND(x)φ(z) are distinct for each xV(G) since φ is D-irregular. This implies that wt(x)wt(y) for every two distinct vertices x,yV(G), and so sDc(G)sD(G).

Since sD(G)< we have sDc(G)< according to (1). Then, by similar arguments, we can prove that sD(G)sDc(G). Therefore sDc(G)=sD(G).

(c) Let G be a disconnected graph with components G1,G2,,Gm for m2, and sD(G)<. Assume φ be a D-irregular sD(G)-labeling of G satisfying the stated condition. Define a new vertex labeling φ of G such that φ(x)=φ(x)for xV(G).

We shall show that φ is a Dc-irregular sD(G)-labeling of G.

Clearly φ(x)sD(G) for all xV(G). Let us consider the weight of any vertex x in the component Gi, i=1,2,,m, under the labeling φ. We have wt(x)=zNDc(x)φ(z)=zN{0,1,}D(x)φ(z)=zN({0,1,,diam(Gi)}D){diam(Gi)+1,diam(Gi)+2,}(x)φ(z)=zN{0,1,,diam(Gi)}D(x)φ(z)=zV(Gi)φ(z)zND(x)φ(z).

Consider any two distinct vertices x,yV(G). Evidently if x and y are in the same component then wt(x)wt(y) since zND(x)φ(z)zND(y)φ(z). Now, suppose that x and y are in the different components, say xV(Gi) and yV(Gj) for ij. By the property in (3), it follows that wt(x)wt(y). So all the vertex weights are distinct, and hence sDc(G)sD(G)◻

It is evident that every D-antimagic labeling is also a D-irregular labeling. Consequently, we derive the following property, which provides a better upper bound for sD(G) in a case that G is D-antimagic.

Proposition 2.4. Let G be a D-antimagic graph on n vertices. Then sD(G)n.

The next proposition, which is straightforward, shows that the upper bound in Proposition 2.4 is sharp.

Proposition 2.5. Let G be a graph on n vertices. If one of the following conditions holds:

  1. G is connected and D{{0},{1,2,,diam(G)}},

  2. GmK2, m2, and D{{0},{1}}, or

  3. G is disconnected, GmK2, m2, and D={0},

then G is D-antimagic and sD(G)=n.

In the next theorem, we provide lower bounds for D-irregularity strength of arbitrary graphs. For a vertex x in a graph G, the D-degree, dD(x) of x is the cardinality of the set ND(x).

Theorem 2.6. Let G be a graph with sD(G)<. Let δD(G) and ΔD(G) be the minimum and the maximum D-degree of vertices of G, respectively. Let nD,i be the number of vertices in G with D-degree i for i=δD(G),δD(G)+1,,ΔD(G). Then, sD(G)maxδD(G)iΔD(G){δD(G)+j=δD(G)inD,j1i}.

Proof. For some t, let δD(G)+j=δD(G)tnD,j1t=maxδD(G)iΔD(G){δD(G)+j=δD(G)inD,j1i}. In any D-irregular labeling of a graph G, the smallest weight of vertices with D-degrees δD(G),δD(G)+1,,t is at least δD(G), and the largest among them must be at least δD(G)+j=δD(G)tnD,j1. Such largest weight is obtained from the sum of at most t labels. Therefore sD(G)δD(G)+j=δD(G)tnD,j1t=maxδD(G)iΔD(G){δD(G)+j=δD(G)inD,j1i}. ◻

Notice that if D={1}, D={0,1}, and D={0,1,,d}, 1ddiam(G), then we acquire the lower bounds for sD(G) which were proved in [21, Theorem 2.1], [19, Theorem 2], and [23, Lemma 2.1], respectively.

The next two theorems demonstrate key properties that will be instrumental in determining the D-irregularity strength of a graph.

Theorem 2.7. Let G be a graph with sD(G)<. Let x,y be two distinct vertices of G such that ND(x){y}=ND(y){x}. Then x and y must receive distinct labels in any D-irregular labeling of G. Furthermore, if G is connected then x and y must receive distinct labels in any Dc-irregular labeling of G.

Proof. Let x,y be two distinct vertices of G with ND(x){y}=ND(y){x}. As sD(G)<, xND(y) and yND(x). Next, in any D-irregular labeling φ of G, wt(x)=zND(x)φ(z)=φ(y)+zND(x){y}φ(z), and wt(y)=zND(y)φ(z)=φ(x)+zND(y){x}φ(z).

Since wt(x)wt(y) and zND(x){y}φ(z)=zND(y){x}φ(z) then φ(x)φ(y).

Now let G be connected. Then, in any Dc-irregular labeling φ of G, wt(x)=zNDc(x)φ(z)=zN{0,1,,diam(G)}D(x)φ(z)=zV(G)φ(z)zND(x)φ(z)=zV(G)φ(z)φ(y)zND(x){y}φ(z), and wt(y)=zNDc(y)φ(z)=zN{0,1,,diam(G)}D(y)φ(z)=zV(G)φ(z)zND(y)φ(z)=zV(G)φ(z)φ(x)zND(y){x}φ(z).

Since wt(x)wt(y) and zND(x){y}φ(z)=zND(y){x}φ(z) then φ(x)φ(y)◻

Theorem 2.8. Let G be a graph, D=DD, DD=, and sD(G)<. Let x,y be two distinct vertices of G such that xND(y) and yND(x). If ND(x)=ND(y), ND(x)ND(y) and |ND(x)|=|ND(y)|=1 then vertices in ND(x) and ND(y) must receive distinct labels in any D-irregular labeling of G.

Proof. Let x,y be two distinct vertices of G with xND(y) and yND(x) such that ND(x)=ND(y), ND(x)ND(y) and |ND(x)|=|ND(y)|=1. Let ND(x)={x} and ND(y)={y}, where xy. Then, in any D-irregular labeling φ of G, wt(x)=zND(x)φ(z)=zNDD(x)φ(z)=zND(x)φ(z)+zND(x)φ(z)=zND(x)φ(z)+φ(x), and wt(y)=zND(y)φ(z)=zNDD(y)φ(z)=zND(y)φ(z)+zND(y)φ(z)=zND(y)φ(z)+φ(y).

Since wt(x)wt(y) and zND(x)φ(z)=zND(y)φ(z) then φ(x)φ(y)◻

Notice that when D={1}, Theorem 2.7 yields the result mentioned in [18, Observation 2], and also when D={0,1}, D={1}, and D={0}, Theorem 2.8 provides the property proved in [4, Lemma 3.1].

In [16], Simanjuntak et al. defined a distance-D graph of a graph G, denoted by GD, as a simple graph with the same vertices as G, where two vertices are adjacent if their distance in G is an element of D. Note that, since GD is a simple graph, any loops that would arise when 0D are excluded from the graph.

Theorem 2.9. Let G be a graph.

  1. If D does not contain 0 then s{1}(GD)=sD(G).

  2. If D contains 0 then s{0,1}(GD)=sD(G).

Proof. Let φ be a D-irregular sD(G)-labeling of a graph G. We define a vertex labeling φ of GD in the following way. φ(x)=φ(x), for any vertex xV(GD) corresponding to a vertex xV(G).

If 0D, then we have yN(x)φ(y)=yND(x)φ(y), which implies that s{1}(GD)sD(G). Using similar arguments, we can also show that sD(G)s{1}(GD), so s{1}(GD)=sD(G). This proves (1).

Furthermore, if 0D then φ(x)+yN(x)φ(y)=yND(x)φ(y), which leads to s{0,1}(GD)sD(G). Again, using similar reasoning, we can demonstrate that sD(G)s{0,1}(GD), thus s{0,1}(GD)=sD(G). This completes the proof of (2). ◻

3. Graphs with small diameter

This section showcases the D-irregularity strength for families of graphs with diameter at most three, including complete graphs, the join graph G+K1, complete bipartite graphs, and double stars, for all possible sets D.

A complete graph Kn is the graph with n vertices in which any two of them are joined by an edge. Evidently, the graph K1 is the only graph of diameter zero, and the graph Kn, n2, is the only graph with diameter one.

A complete bipartite graph Km,n is the graph whose vertices can be partitioned into two subsets X and Y with |X|=m and |Y|=n, such that xy is an edge if and only if xX and yY. The graph Km,n, 1mn, (m,n)(1,1), has diameter two. The complete bipartite graph K1,n is called a star, the only tree with diameter two.

The join product between two given graphs G and H, denoted by G+H, is the graph obtained from G and H by joining an edge from every vertex of G to every vertex of H. The graph G+H has diameter one or two, with diameter one if and only if G and H are complete graphs. Therefore, the graph G+K1 has diameter two if and only if G is not a complete graph.

A double star Sm,n is the graph obtained from two stars K1,m and K1,n by connecting the two vertices of degrees m and n in K1,m and K1,n, respectively. The graph Sm,n, 1mn, is the only tree with diameter three.

We first examine complete graphs. It is evident that sD(K1)=1. We shall show that K1 is the only graph with D-irregularity strength one. Beforehand, let us prove in the next proposition a generalization of the well-known property that a simple graph on n2 vertices whose all the vertex degrees are distinct does not exist.

Theorem 3.1. There is no simple graph on n2 vertices whose vertex D-degrees are all distinct.

Proof. Assume that such a graph G exists. Note that the D-degree of a vertex is at least 0 and at most n. Thus, n numbers in the set {0,1,,n} have to be the D-degree of vertices of G.

We will show that n cannot be a vertex D-degree. Assume otherwise, that dD(x)=n for some vertex xV(G). This means that ND(x)=V(G), which forces G to be connected and D={0,1,,diam(G)}. But then, this implies that ND(y)=V(G) for any vertex yxV(G), and so ND(x)=ND(y), a contradiction. Therefore the vertex D-degrees of G must be 0,1,,n1.

Consider two distinct vertices x,yV(G) with dD(x)=0 and dD(y)=n1. Since dD(x)=0, we get 0D. This implies that ND(y)=V(G){y}, and so xND(y). However, this is impossible since dD(x)=0. Hence, the statement holds. ◻

From Proposition 3.1 it follows that for any graph G of order n2, labeling all vertices of G with 1 will always result in at least two vertices with the same weight. This brings us to the characterization of graphs with D-irregularity strength one.

Theorem 3.2. Let G be a graph. Then sD(G)=1 if and only if GK1.

Question 3.3. Characterize all graphs with D-irregularity strength two.

For n2, the D-irregularity strength of the complete graph Kn which can be directly derived from Proposition 2.5 and Corollary 2.2, is presented in the following theorem. Note that the cases when D={1} and D={0,1} were also proved in [18] and [4], respectively.

Theorem 3.4 ([4,18]). Let Kn be a complete graph for n2. Then sD(Kn)={nif D{{0},{1}},if D={0,1}.

Next, we deal with the join graph G+K1. To begin, let us restate the results on sD(G+K1) for D={1} and D={0,1}.

Theorem 3.5. ([22]). Let G be a graph. If s{1}(G)= then s{1}(G+K1)=. Moreover, if s{1}(G)< then s{1}(G+K1)={s{1}(G)if there exists a {1}-irregular s{1}(G)-labeling φ of Gsuch that xV(G)φ(x)>max{wt(x):xV(G)}+1,s{1}(G)+1otherwise.

Theorem 3.6 ([4]). Let G be a graph with maximum degree Δ(G). Then s{0,1}(G+K1)={s{0,1}(G)if Δ(G)<|V(G)|1,if Δ(G)=|V(G)|1.

Corollary 2.2, Proposition 2.5, and Theorems 2.3, 3.5 and 3.6 allow us to completely obtained exact values on D-irregularity strength for the graph G+K1.

Theorem 3.7. Let G be a not complete graph on n2 vertices with maximum degree Δ(G). Then

  1. If D{{0},{1,2}} then sD(G+K1)=n+1.

  2. If one of the following conditions is satisfied:

    • D{{2},{0,1}} and Δ(G)<|V(G)|1, or

    • D{{1},{0,2}} and there exists a {1}-irregular s{1}(G)-labeling φ of G such that xV(G)φ(x)>max{wt(x):xV(G)}+1,

    then sD(G+K1)=sD(G).

  3. If D{{1},{0,2}} and xV(G)φ(x)=max{wt(x):xV(G)}+1 for every {1}-irregular s{1}(G)-labeling φ of G, then sD(G+K1)=sD(G)+1.

  4. If one of the following conditions is satisfied:

    • D{{1},{0,2}} and sD(G)=,

    • D{{2},{0,1}} and Δ(G)=|V(G)|1, or

    • D={0,1,2},

    then sD(G+K1)=.

Now, consider the complete bipartite graph Km,n for 1mn, (m,n)(1,1). By Proposition 2.5, it is clear that s{0}(Km,n)=s{1,2}(Km,n)=m+n. From [4, Theorem 3.1] and Theorem 2.3, we know that s{0,1}(Km,n)=s{2}(Km,n)=n when m<n, and s{0,1}(Km,n)=s{2}(Km,n)=n+2 when m=n2. Moreover, sD(Km,n)= whenever D{{1},{0,2},{0,1,2}}, which follows immediately from [18, Observation 1], Theorem 2.3 and Corollary 2.2. Thus, we arrive at the following theorem.

Theorem 3.8 [4,18] Let Km,n be a complete bipartite graph for 1mn, (m,n)(1,1). Then sD(Km,n)={m+nif D{{0},{1,2}},nif D{{2},{0,1}} and m<n,n+2if D{{2},{0,1}} and m=n2,if D{{1},{0,2},{0,1,2}}.

Corollary 3.9. Let K1,n be a star for n2. Then sD(K1,n)={n+1if D{{0},{1,2}},nif D{{2},{0,1}},if D{{1},{0,2},{0,1,2}}.

We now focus on the double star. Let us denote the vertex and edge set of the double star Sm,n respectively by V(Sm,n)={x,xi:i=1,2,,m}{y,yj:j=1,2,,n} and E(Sm,n)={xy}{xxi:i=1,2,,m}{yyj:j=1,2,,n}.

Theorem 3.10 ([6]) Let Sm,n be a double star for 1mn. Then s{0,1}(Sm,n)={nif m<n,n+1otherwise.

Lemma 3.11. If D{{1},{0,2,3}} then sD(S1,1)=2.

Proof. Obviously, s{1}(S1,1)=2. Combining this with Theorem 2.3, s{0,2,3}(S1,1)=2◻

Lemma 3.12. Let Sm,n be a double star for 1m<n. If D{{0,1},{0,3},{1,2},{2,3}} then sD(Sm,n)=n.

Proof. From Theorems 2.3 and 3.10, we get s{0,1}(Sm,n)=s{2,3}(Sm,n)=n. Let D={0,3}. By Theorem 2.8, yi and yj, ij, must receive distinct labels, thus s{0,3}(Sm,n)n. Define a labeling φ:V(Sm,n){1,2,,n} such that φ(x)=1,φ(y)=2,φ(xi)=ifor i=1,2,,m,φ(yj)=jfor j=1,2,,n.

It is easy to see that all vertex labels are at most n. For the vertex weights we have wt(x)=1,wt(y)=2,wt(xi)=n(n+1)2+ifor i=1,2,,m,wt(yj)=m(m+1)2+jfor j=1,2,,n.

As m<n, we get that m(m+1)2+n<n(n+1)2+1, which implies that the vertex weights are all distinct. Therefore s{0,3}(Sm,n)=n. By combining this with Theorem 2.3 we also have s{1,2}(Sm,n)=n◻

Lemma 3.13. Let Sm,n be a double star for 1mn. If one of the following conditions holds:

  1. D{{2},{0,1,3}} and m<n, or

  2. D{{0,1},{2,3}} and m=n,

then sD(Sm,n)=n+1.

Proof. Let D={2} and m<n. Suppose that φ is a {2}-irregular labeling of Sm,n. By Theorem 2.7, φ(yi)φ(yj) for ij, so s{2}(Sm,n)n.

Assume that s{2}(Sm,n)=n. Then {φ(yj):j=1,2,,n}={1,2,,n}, which leads to wt(x)=n(n+1)2 and {wt(yj):j=1,2,,n}={n(n+1)2n+φ(x),n(n+1)2n+1+φ(x),,n(n+1)21+φ(x)}. As 1φ(x)n, the vertex weights are not distinct. Therefore, s{2}(Sm,n)n+1.

Let φ be a vertex labeling of Sm,n defined such that φ(x)=n+1,φ(y)=n,φ(xi)=ifor i=1,2,,m,φ(yj)=jfor j=1,2,,n.

Then we obtain the vertex weights as follows. wt(x)=n(n+1)2,wt(y)=m(m+1)2,wt(xi)=m(m+1)2+nifor i=1,2,,m,wt(yj)=n(n+1)2+n+1jfor j=1,2,,n.

It is not difficult to verify that the vertex weights are distinct and the labels used in the labeling φ are not greater than n+1, which means that φ is a {2}-irregular (n+1)-labeling of Sm,n for m<n. Hence s{2}(Sm,n)=n+1. Furthermore, combining this with Theorem 2.3 we also have s{0,1,3}(Sm,n)=n+1 for m<n.

Next, we have s{0,1}(Sn,n)=s{2,3}(Sn,n)=n+1 by Theorems 2.3 and 3.10. ◻

Lemma 3.14. Let Sn,n be a double star for n2. If D{{0,3},{1,2}} then sD(Sn,n)=n+2.

Proof. Let D={0,3}. Define a vertex labeling φ:V(Sn,n){1,2,,n+2} of Sn,n in the following way: φ(x)=1,φ(y)=2,φ(xi)=ifor i=1,2,,n,φ(yi)=i+2for i=1,2,,n.

Obviously, the largest label that appears on the vertices is n+2. Moreover, we have the following vertex weights. wt(x)=1,wt(y)=2,wt(xi)=n(n+5)2+ifor i=1,2,,n,wt(yi)=n(n+1)2+i+2for i=1,2,,n.

It is easy to see that the vertex weights are distinct. Therefore s{0,3}(Sn,n)n+2.

Next, we shall show that s{0,3}(Sn,n)n+2. For a contradiction, assume that there is a {0,3}-irregular (n+1)-labeling φ of Sn,n for n2. Then by Theorem 2.8, the following properties hold:

  • φ(xi)φ(xj) for ij, and

  • φ(yi)φ(yj) for ij.

We may assume, without loss of generality, that {φ(xi):i=1,2,,n}={1,2,,n} and {φ(yi):i=1,2,,n}={1,2,,n+1}{r}, where 1rn. Then {wt(xi):i=1,2,,n}={n(n+1)2+n+2r,n(n+1)2+n+3r,,n(n+1)2+2n+1r}, and {wt(yi):i=1,2,,n}={n(n+1)2+1,n(n+1)2+2,,n(n+1)2+n+1}{n(n+1)2+r}.

Since these sets are not disjoint, the vertex weights are not distinct, a contradiction. Thuss{0,3}(Sn,n)n+2.

As n+2s{0,3}(Sn,n) and s{0,3}(Sn,n)n+2 we conclude that s{0,3}(Sn,n)=n+2. Furthermore, combining this with Theorem 2.3 we get s{1,2}(Sn,n)=n+2◻

Lemma 3.15. Let Sn,n be a double star for n1. If D{{2},{0,1,3}} then sD(Sn,n)=n+3.

Proof. Let D={2}. Define a vertex labeling φ:V(Sn,n){1,2,,n+3} of Sn,n in the following way: φ(x)=n+3,φ(y)=n+1,φ(xi)=ifor i=1,2,,n,φ(yi)=i+2for i=1,2,,n. Then we get the following vertex weights. wt(x)=n(n+5)2,wt(y)=n(n+1)2,wt(xi)=(n+1)(n+2)2ifor i=1,2,,n,wt(yi)=n(n+7)2+1ifor i=1,2,,n.

It is not hard to show that the vertex weights are distinct and the labels used in the labeling φ are at most n+3. This means that φ is a {2}-irregular (n+3)-labeling of Sn,n for n1. Therefore s{2}(Sn,n)n+3.

Next, we shall show that s{2}(Sn,n)n+3. For a contradiction, assume that there exists a {2}-irregular (n+2)-labeling φ of Sn,n for n1. Using Theorem 2.7, the following properties must be hold:

  • φ(y)φ(xi)φ(xj) for ij, and

  • φ(x)φ(yi)φ(yj) for ij.

Without loss of generality we may assume that {φ(y),φ(xi):i=1,2,,n}={1,2,,n+1} and {φ(x),φ(yi):i=1,2,,n}={1,2,,n+2}{r}, where 1rn+1. Then {wt(y),wt(xi):i=1,2,,n}={(n+1)(n+2)2n1,(n+1)(n+2)2n,,(n+1)(n+2)21} and {wt(x),wt(yi):i=1,2,,n}={(n+1)(n+2)2r,(n+1)(n+2)2r+1,,(n+1)(n+2)2r+n+1}{(n+1)(n+2)2+n+22r}, which implies that the vertex weights are not distinct, a contradiction. Therefore s{2}(Sn,n)n+3.

Since n+3s{2}(Sn,n)n+3, we get s{2}(Sn,n)=n+3 for n1. Moreover, combining this with Theorem 2.3 we also obtain s{0,1,3}(Sn,n)=n+3 for n1◻

In the next theorem, we present D-irregularity strength for the double stars.

Theorem 3.16. Let Sm,n be a double star for 1mn. Then

  1. If D{{1},{0,2,3}} then sD(S1,1)=2.

  2. If D{{0,1},{0,3},{1,2},{2,3}} and m<n then sD(Sm,n)=n.

  3. If one of the following conditions is satisfied:

    • D{{2},{0,1,3}} and m<n, or

    • D{{0,1},{2,3}} and m=n,

    then sD(Sm,n)=n+1.

  4. If D{{0,3},{1,2}} and m=n2 then sD(Sm,n)=n+2.

  5. If D{{2},{0,1,3}} and m=n then sD(Sm,n)=n+3.

  6. If D{{0},{1,2,3}} then sD(Sm,n)=m+n+2.

  7. If one of the following conditions is satisfied:

    • D{{3},{0,2},{1,3},{0,1,2},{0,1,2,3}},

    • D{{1},{0,2,3}} and (m,n)(1,1), or

    • D{{0,3},{1,2}} and m=n=1,

    then sD(Sm,n)=.

Proof. (1)-(5) follow from Lemmas 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14 and 3.15, respectively. Similarly, (6)-(7) are derived by applying Proposition 2.5, and Theorems 2.1 and 2.3. ◻

It is worth noting that, from Theorems 3.4 and 3.16, along with Corollary 3.9, we have fully characterized the D-irregularity strength for all non-trivial trees with diameter at most three, for all possible sets D.

Question 3.17. Find the D-irregularity strength of all trees with diameter four for all possible Ds.

4. Graphs with small maximum degree

This section explores the {d}-irregularity strength of certain graphs with maximum degree two, focusing particularly on the disjoint union of paths and 2-regular graphs, for a positive integer d.

We begin by examining the {d}-irregularity strength of the disjoint union of paths mPn for m1 and n2. For d=1, the following theorem, established in [18,20], provides the result.

Theorem 4.1 [18,20]. Let mPn be an m disjoint union of a path on n vertices for m1 and n2. Then s{1}(mPn)={2mif n=2,if n=3,mn2if n4.

In the next theorem, we determine {d}-irregularity strength of mPn for certain d2.

Theorem 4.2. Let mPn be an m disjoint union of a path on n vertices for m1 and n2, and let 2dn1. Then

  1. s{n2}(mPn)=mn.

  2. For d{nk:4kn2}, s{d}(mPn)=mn2.

  3. s{d}(mPn)= if and only if d={n3if n0 (mod d),nt3 or nt2if nt (mod d), 0<t<d,ntif nt (mod d), 0<t<d, and m(n2t)2.

Proof. (1) Evidently, (mPn){n2}mn2K2. Then by Theorem 2.9, we have s{n2}(mPn)=s{1}(mn2K2)=mn.

(2) If d{nk:4kn2} then (mPn){d}mdPndmn2P2mn3P3. By Theorems 2.9 and 4.1, s{d}(mPn)=s{1}(mdPnd)=mn2.

(3) From Theorem 2.9 we know that s{d}(mPn)= if and only if s{1}((mPn){d})=. Furthermore, by Theorem 2.1 we have that s{1}((mPn){d})= if and only if (mPn){d} contains at least one component isomorphic to P3 or at least two components isomorphic to P1. Thus, s{d}(mPn)= if and only if (mPn){d} has at least one component isomorphic to P3 or at least two components isomorphic to P1.

We have that (mPn){d}={mdPndif n0 (mod d),m(dt)PntdmtPnt+ddif nt (mod d), 0<t<d.

Clearly, (mPn){d} contains at least one component isomorphic to P3 if and only if d={n3if n0 (mod d),nt3 or nt2if nt (mod d), 0<t<d, and (mPn){d} has at least two components isomorphic to P1 if and only if nt (mod d), 0<t<d, d=nt and m(n2t)2. Therefore, combining both conditions, we conclude that s{d}(mPn)= if and only if d={n3if n0 (mod d),nt3 or nt2if nt (mod d), 0<t<d,ntif nt (mod d), 0<t<d, and m(n2t)2. ◻

Question 4.3. Find {d}-irregularity strength of mPn for other values of d2 not covered in Theorem 4.2.

Next, we address the {d}-irregularity strength for 2-regular graphs, i.e., the disjoint union of cycles. To achieve this, we first employ the irregularity strength and edge irregularity strength of 2-regular graphs to obtain {1}-irregularity strength of 2-regular graphs. Subsequently, we use Theorem 2.9 to derive the {d}-irregularity strength of 2-regular graphs. Recall that the edge irregularity strength of a graph G, denoted by es(G), is the minimum k such that an assignment of integers 1,2,,k to the vertices of G implies that distinct edges have distinct weights, where the edge weight is the sum of labels of its two end vertices [1].

We begin by stating the theorem of Faudree et al. [10], which determines the irregularity strength of 2-regular graphs.

Theorem 4.4. ([10]). Let G be a 2-regular graph on n vertices. Then n2s(G)n2+2. Moreover,

  1. If G is the disjoint union of triangles n3C3 then s(n3C3)={n2+1if n3 (mod 4),n2+2otherwise.

  2. If G has no triangle then s(G)={n2if n1 (mod 4),n2+1otherwise.

In the next theorem, we prove that the irregularity strength and the edge irregularity strength of 2-regular graphs are equivalent.

Theorem 4.5. Let G be a 2-regular graph on n vertices. Then es(G)=s(G). Consequently, n2es(G)n2+2. Moreover,

  1. If G is the disjoint union of triangles n3C3 then es(n3C3)={n2+1if n3 (mod 4),n2+2otherwise.

  2. If G has no triangle then es(G)={n2if n1 (mod 4),n2+1otherwise.

Proof. Let G be a 2-regular graph on n vertices. In any edge irregular labeling of G, if we shift the label of each vertex to the edge incident to it in the clockwise direction, we obtain an irregular labeling of G. This demonstrates that es(G)s(G). Conversely, in any irregular labeling of G, shifting the label of each edge to the vertex incident to it in the clockwise direction results in an edge irregular labeling of G, implying that es(G)s(G). Consequently, es(G)=s(G). The rest of the theorem follows immediately from Theorem 4.4. ◻

Let GmC3(GmC3) be a 2-regular graph on n vertices containing m triangles and no square. Evidently, mC3(GmC3){2} is a 2-regular graph with n vertices. Moreover, it is not hard to know that every {1}-irregular labeling of G induces an edge irregular labeling of mC3(GmC3){2}, and every edge irregular labeling of mC3(GmC3){2} induces a {1}-irregular labeling of G, meaning that {1}-irregularity strength of G and edge irregularity strength of mC3(GmC3){2} are equivalent.

Further, if GmC3n3m6C6 then mC3(n3m6C6){2} is the disjoint union of triangles n3C3, and if m=0 and G has no hexagon then G{2} is a 2-regular graph without any triangle.

With the above facts in hand along with Theorem 4.5 we obtain the following.

Theorem 4.6. Let GmC3(GmC3) be a 2-regular graph on n vertices containing m triangles and no square for n3 and 0mn3. Then s{1}(G)=es(mC3(GmC3){2}). Consequently, n2s{1}(G)n2+2. Moreover,

  1. If G=mC3n3m6C6 then s{1}(G)={n2+1if n3 (mod 4),n2+2otherwise.

  2. If m=0 and G has no hexagon then s{1}(G)={n2if n1 (mod 4),n2+1otherwise.

The next theorem provides {d}-irregularity strength of the isomorphic copies of cycles mCn for 1dn2.

Theorem 4.7. Let mCn be an m disjoint union of a cycle on n vertices for m1 and n3. Then

  1. s{n4}(mCn)=.

  2. s{n2}(mCn)=mn.

  3. For d{n6,n3}, s{d}(mCn)={mn2+1if mn3 (mod 4),mn2+2otherwise.

  4. For d({1,2,,n2}{n6,n4,n3,n2}), s{d}(mCn)={mn2if mn1 (mod 4),mn2+1otherwise.

Proof. By simple observation, (mCn){n4}=mn4C4 and (mCn){n2}=mn2K2. Then by Theorem 2.9, we find that s{n4}(mCn)=s{1}(mn4C4)= and s{n2}(mCn)=s{1}(mn2K2)=mn. This proves (1) and (2).

Next, let d{n6,n3}. If d=n6 then (mCn){n6}=mn6C6. By Theorems 2.9 and 4.6, we obtain s{n6}(mCn)=s{1}(mn6C6)={mn2+1if mn3 (mod 4),mn2+2otherwise. If d=n3 then (mCn){n3}=mn3C3. Again, by Theorems 2.9 and 4.6, we have s{n3}(mCn)=s{1}(mn3C3)={mn2+1if mn3 (mod 4),mn2+2otherwise. This proves 3.

Now, for d({1,2,,n2}{n6,n4,n3,n2}), we observe that (mCn){d} is a 2-regular graph without any cycle Ct for t=3,4,6. By Theorems 2.9 and 4.6, we conclude that s{d}(mCn)=s{1}((mCn){d})={mn2if mn1 (mod 4),mn2+1otherwise. Hence (4) is proved. ◻

Under certain conditions, Theorem 4.7 can be extended to 2-regular graphs that contain non-isomorphic cycle components.

Theorem 4.8. Let G=i=1mCni be a 2-regular graph on n=n1+n2++nm vertices with m2 components such that 3n1n2nm, and GmCp for some p3. Then

  1. For d({ni4n12:i=1,2,,m}{n12+1,n12+2,,nm2}), s{d}(G)=.

  2. For d({ni6,ni3n12:i=1,2,,m}{nj4,nj2:j=1,2,,m}), n2s{d}(G)n2+2. In particular, if d{ni6,ni3} for some i, and njgcd(nj,d){3,6} for every j=1,2,,m, ji, then s{d}(G)={n2+1if n3 (mod 4),n2+2otherwise.

  3. For d({1,2,,n12}{nj6,nj4,nj3,nj2:j=1,2,,m}), s{d}(G)={n2if n1 (mod 4),n2+1otherwise.

Proof. (1) If d{ni4n12:i=1,2,,m} then G{d} contains a square, and so s{d}(G)=s{1}(G{d})=. If d{n12+1,n12+2,,nm2} then N{d}(x)=N{d}(y)= for any two distinct vertices x and y in the component Cn1, thus s{d}(G)=.

(2) If d({ni6,ni3n12:i=1,2,,m}{nj4,nj2:j=1,2,,m}) then G{d}tC3(G{d}tC3) is a 2-regular graph of order n containing t triangles and no square for some t0. Therefore, by Theorems 2.9 and 4.6, n2s{d}(G)=s{1}(G{d})n2+2. For some i, let d{ni6,ni3}, and for every j=1,2,,m, ji, let njgcd(nj,d){3,6}. Then G{d}m1C3m2C6, where 3m1+6m2=n. Thus, by Theorems 2.9 and 4.6, s{d}(G)=s{1}(G{d})={n2+1if n3 (mod 4),n2+2otherwise.

(3) If d({1,2,,n12}{nj6,nj4,nj3,nj2:j=1,2,,m}) then G{d} is a 2-regular graphs with n vertices containing no cycle Ct, t=3,4,6. By Theorems 2.9 and 4.6, s{d}(G)=s{1}(G{d})={n2if n1 (mod 4),n2+1otherwise. ◻

Question 4.9.Find the {d}-irregularity strength of arbitrary 2-regular graphs for other values of d not mentioned in Theorems 4.7 and 4.8.

5. Final remarks

In this work, we introduced a D-irregular labeling as a generalization of non-inclusive and inclusive d-distance irregular labeling of graphs. We derived fundamental properties on D-irregularity strength for arbitrary graphs, and presented exact values on this parameter for specific families of graphs with small diameter or small maximum degree.

The authors of [16] posed a conjecture below.

Conjecture 5.1 ([16]) A graph G is D-antimagic if and only if ND(x)ND(y) for every two distinct vertices x,yV(G).

Note that if Conjecture 5.1 holds, then for a graph G with finite D-irregularity strength, the inequality sD(G)|V(G)| holds as well. Motivated by this observation and the results presented in Proposition 2.5, we believe that the following conjecture is true.

Conjecture 5.2 Let G be a graph on n vertices with sD(G)<. Then sD(G)n with the equality if and only if one of the following conditions holds:

  1. G is connected and D{{0},{1,2,,diam(G)}},

  2. GmK2, m2, and D={{0},{1}}, or

  3. G is disconnected, GmK2, m2, and D={0}.

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by Direktorat Riset, Teknologi, dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat, Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi, Riset, dan Teknologi, Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi Republik Indonesia under the grant “Penelitian Fundamental Reguler 2024” and by Institut Teknologi Bandung under the grant “Program Riset International 2023/2024”. The first author gratefully acknowledges the support provided by the Excellent Scholarship Program of the Indonesian Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology.

References:

  1. A. Ahmad, O. Al-Mushayt, and M. Bača. On edge irregularity strength of graphs. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 243:607–610, 2014. 10.1016/j.amc.2014.06.028.
  2. M. Bača, M. Imran, and A. Semaničová-Feňovčíková. Irregularity and modular irregularity strength of wheels. Mathematics, 9(21):2710, 2021. 10.3390/math9212710.
  3. M. Bača, Z. Kimáková, M. Lascsáková, and A. Semaničová-Feňovčíková. The irregularity and modular irregularity strength of fan graphs. Symmetry, 13(4):605, 2021. 10.3390/sym13040605.
  4. M. Bača, A. Semaničová-Feňovčíková, Slamin, and K. Sugeng. On inclusive distance vertex irregular labelings. Electronic Journal of Graph Theory and Applications, 6(1):61–83, 2018. 10.5614/ejgta.2018.6.1.5.
  5. N. Bong, Y. Lin, and Slamin. On distance-irregular labelings of cycles and wheels. The Australasian Journal of Combinatorics, 69(3):315–322, 2017.
  6. N. Bong, Y. Lin, and Slamin. On inclusive and non-inclusive vertex irregular d-distance vertex labeling. Journal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing, 113:233–247, 2020.
  7. G. Chartrand, M. Jacobson, J. Lehel, O. Oellermann, S. Ruiz, and F. Saba. Irregular networks. Congressus Numerantium, 64:197–210, 1988.
  8. G. Chartrand, L. Lesniak, and P. Zhang. Graphs & digraphs, sixth ed. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, 2016.
  9. N. Cutinho, S. Sudha, and S. Arumugam. Distance antimagic labelings of Cartesian product of graphs. AKCE International Journal of Graphs and Combinatorics, 17(3):940–942, 2020. 10.1016/j.akcej.2019.08.005.
  10. R. Faudree, R. Schelp, M. Jacobson, and J. Lehel. Irregular networks, regular graphs and integer matrices with distinct row and column sums. Discrete Mathematics, 76(3):223–240, 1989. 10.1016/0012-365X(89)90321-X.
  11. J. Gallian. A dynamic survey of graph labeling. The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics:#DS6, 2023. 10.37236/27.
  12. A. Handa, A. Godinho, and T. Singh. Distance antimagic labeling of the ladder graph. Electronic Notes in Discrete Mathematics, 63:317–322, 2017. 10.1016/j.endm.2017.11.028.
  13. A. Handa, A. Godinho, T. Singh, and S. Arumugam. Distance antimagic labeling of join and corona of two graphs. AKCE International Journal of Graphs and Combinatorics, 14(2):172–177, 2017. 10.1016/j.akcej.2017.04.003.
  14. N. Kamatchi and S. Arumugam. Distance antimagic graphs. Journal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing, 84:61–67, 2013.
  15. J. Przybyło. The irregularity strength of dense graphs-on asymptotically optimal solutions of problems of Faudree, Jacobson, Kinch, and Lehel. European Journal of Combinatorics, 104013, 2024. 10.1016/j.ejc.2024.104013.
  16. R. Simanjuntak, T. Nadeak, F. Yasin, K. Wijaya, N. Hinding, and K. Sugeng. Another antimagic conjecture. Symmetry, 13(11):2071, 2021. 10.3390/sym13112071.
  17. R. Simanjuntak and A. Tritama. Distance antimagic product graphs. Symmetry, 14(7):1411, 2022. 10.3390/sym14071411.
  18. Slamin. On distance irregular labelling of graphs. Far East Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 102(5):919–932, 2017. 10.17654/ms102050919.
  19. F. Susanto, C. Betitsiyan, I. Halikin, and K. Wijaya. On inclusive distance vertex irregularity strength of small identical copies of star graphs. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1872(1):012005, 2021. 10.1088/1742-6596/1872/1/012005.
  20. F. Susanto, K. Wijaya, P. Purnama, and Slamin. On distance irregular labeling of disconnected graphs. Kragujevac Journal of Mathematics, 46(4):507–523, 2022.
  21. F. Susanto, K. Wijaya, Slamin, and A. Semaničová-Feňovčíková. Distance irregularity strength of graphs with pendant vertices. Opuscula Mathematica, 42(3):439–458, 2022. 10.7494/OpMathematics.2022.42.3.439.
  22. F. Susanto, K. Wijaya, I. Sudarsana, and Slamin. Non-inclusive and inclusive distance irregularity strength for the join product of graphs. Electronic Journal of Graph Theory and Applications, 10(1):1–13, 2022. 10.5614/ejgta.2022.10.1.1.
  23. B. Utami, K. Sugeng, and S. Utama. On inclusive d-distance irregularity strength on triangular ladder graph and path. AKCE International Journal of Graphs and Combinatorics, 17(3):810–819, 2020. 10.1016/j.akcej.2019.10.003.
  24. R. Wulandari and R. Simanjuntak. Distance antimagic labelings of product graphs. Electronic Journal of Graph Theory and Applications, 11(1):111–123, 2023. 10.5614/ejgta.2023.11.1.9.