The 2-Extra Diagnosability of Alternating Group Graphs under the PMC Model and MM* Model ()

Shiying Wang^{}, Yunxia Ren^{}

School of Mathematics and Information Science, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang, China.

**DOI: **10.4236/ajcm.2018.81004
PDF HTML XML
548
Downloads
986
Views
Citations

School of Mathematics and Information Science, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang, China.

Diagnosability of a multiprocessor system is one
important study topic. In 2015, Zhang * et al.* proposed a new measure for fault diagnosis of the
system, namely,

Share and Cite:

Wang, S. and Ren, Y. (2018) The 2-Extra Diagnosability of Alternating Group Graphs under the PMC Model and MM* Model. *American Journal of Computational Mathematics*, **8**, 42-54. doi: 10.4236/ajcm.2018.81004.

1. Introduction

Many multiprocessor systems take interconnection networks (networks for short) as underlying topologies and a network is usually represented by a graph where nodes represent processors and links represent communication links between processors. We use graphs and networks interchangeably. For a multiprocessor system, study on the topological properties of its network is important. Furthermore, some processors may fail in the system, so processor fault identification plays an important role for reliable computing. The first step to deal with faults is to identify the faulty processors from the fault-free ones. The identification process is called the diagnosis of the system. A system is said to be t-diagnosable if all faulty processors can be identified without replacement, provided that the number of faults presented does not exceed t. The diagnosability of a system G is the maximum value of t such that G is t-diagnosable [1] [2] [3] . For a t-diagnosable system, Dahbura and Masson [1] proposed an algorithm with time complex $O\left({n}^{2.5}\right)$ , which can effectively identify the set of faulty processors.

Several diagnosis models were proposed to identify the faulty processors. One major approach is the Preparata, Metze, and Chien’s (PMC) diagnosis model introduced by Preparata et al. [4] . The diagnosis of the system is achieved through two linked processors testing each other. Another major approach, namely the comparison diagnosis model (MM model), was proposed by Maeng and Malek [5] . In the MM model, to diagnose a system, a node sends the same task to two of its neighbors, and then compares their responses. In 2005, Lai et al. [3] introduced a restricted diagnosability of multiprocessor systems called conditional diagnosability. They consider the situation that any fault set cannot contain all the neighbors of any vertex in a system. In 2012, Peng et al. [6] proposed a measure for fault diagnosis of the system, namely, g-good-neighbor diagnosability (which is also called g-good-neighbor conditional diagnosability), which requires that every fault-free node has at least g fault-free neighbors. In [6] , they studied the g-good-neighbor diagnosability of the n-dimensional hypercube under the PMC model. In [7] , Wang and Han studied the g-good-neighbor diagnosability of the n-dimensional hypercube under the MM* model. Yuan et al. [8] and [9] studied that the g-good-neighbor diagnosability of the k-ary n-cube $\left(k\ge 3\right)$ under the PMC model and MM* model. The Cayley graph $C{\Gamma}_{n}$ generated by the transposition tree ${\Gamma}_{n}$ has recently received considerable attention. In [10] [11] , Wang et al. studied the g-good-neighbor diagnosability of $C{\Gamma}_{n}$ under the PMC model and MM* model for $g=1,2$ . In 2015, Zhang et al. [12] proposed a new measure for fault diagnosis of the system, namely, g-extra diagnosability, which restrains that every fault-free component has at least $\left(g+1\right)$ fault-free nodes. In [12] , they studied the g-extra diagnosability of the n-dimensional hypercube under the PMC model and MM* model. The n-dimensional bubble-sort star graph $B{S}_{n}$ has many good properties. In 2016, Wang et al. [13] studied the 2-extra diagnosability of $B{S}_{n}$ under the PMC model and MM* model.

As a favorable topology structure of interconnection networks, the n-dimensional alternating group graph $A{G}_{n}$ has many good properties. In this paper, we give that the 2-extra diagnosability of $A{G}_{n}$ is $6n-17$ for $n\ge 5$ under the PMC model and MM* model.

2. Preliminaries

In this section, some definitions and notations needed for our discussion, the alternating group graph, the PMC model and the MM* model are introduced.

2.1. Notations

A multiprocessor system is modeled as an undirected simple graph $G=\left(V\mathrm{,}E\right)$ , whose vertices (nodes) represent processors and edges (links) represent communication links. Given a nonempty vertex subset ${V}^{\prime}$ of V, the induced subgraph by ${V}^{\prime}$ in G, denoted by $G\left[{V}^{\prime}\right]$ , is a graph, whose vertex set is ${V}^{\prime}$ and the edge set is the set of all the edges of G with both endpoints in ${V}^{\prime}$ . The degree ${d}_{G}\left(v\right)$ of a vertex v is the number of edges incident with v. The minimum degree of a vertex in G is denoted by $\delta \left(G\right)$ . For any vertex v, we define the neighborhood ${N}_{G}\left(v\right)$ of v in G to be the set of vertices adjacent to v. u is called a neighbor vertex or a neighbor of v for $u\in {N}_{G}\left(v\right)$ . Let $S\subseteq V$ . We use ${N}_{G}\left(S\right)$ to denote the set ${\cup}_{v\in S}{N}_{G}\left(v\right)\backslash S$ . For neighborhoods and degrees, we will usually omit the subscript for the graph when no confusion arises. A graph G is said to be k-regular if for any vertex v, ${d}_{G}\left(v\right)=k$ . The connectivity $\kappa \left(G\right)$ of a graph G is the minimum number of vertices whose removal results in a disconnected graph or only one vertex left when G is complete. Let ${F}_{1}$ and ${F}_{2}$ be two distinct subsets of V, and let the symmetric difference ${F}_{1}\Delta {F}_{2}=\left({F}_{1}\backslash {F}_{2}\right)\cup \left({F}_{2}\backslash {F}_{1}\right)$ . Let ${B}_{1}\mathrm{,}\cdots \mathrm{,}{B}_{k}$ $\left(k\ge 2\right)$ be the components of $G-{F}_{1}$ . If $\left|V\left({B}_{1}\right)\right|\le \cdots \le \left|V\left({B}_{k}\right)\right|$ $\left(k\ge 2\right)$ , then ${B}_{k}$ is called the maximum component of $G-{F}_{1}$ . For graph-theoretical terminology and notation not defined here we follow [14] .

Let $G=\left(V\mathrm{,}E\right)$ . A fault set $F\subseteq V$ is called a g-good-neighbor faulty set if $\left|N\left(v\right)\cap \left(V\backslash F\right)\right|\ge g$ for every vertex v in $V\backslash F$ . A g-good-neighbor cut of G is a g-good-neighbor faulty set F such that $G-F$ is disconnected. The minimum cardinality of g-good-neighbor cuts is said to be the g-good-neighbor connectivity of G, denoted by ${\kappa}^{\left(g\right)}\left(G\right)$ . A fault set $F\subseteq V$ is called a g-extra faulty set if every component of $G-F$ has at least $\left(g+1\right)$ vertices. A g-extra cut of G is a g-extra faulty set F such that $G-F$ is disconnected. The minimum cardinality of g-extra cuts is said to be the g-extra connectivity of G, denoted by ${\stackrel{\u02dc}{\kappa}}^{\left(g\right)}\left(G\right)$ .

Proposition 2.1 [15] Let G be a connected graph. Then ${\stackrel{\u02dc}{\kappa}}^{\left(g\right)}\left(G\right)\le {\kappa}^{\left(g\right)}\left(G\right)$ .

Proposition 2.2 [15] Let G be a connected graph. Then ${\kappa}^{\left(1\right)}\left(G\right)={\stackrel{\u02dc}{\kappa}}^{\left(1\right)}\left(G\right)$ .

2.2. The PMC Model and the MM^{*} Model

Under the PMC model [5] [8] , to diagnose a system G, two adjacent nodes in G are capable to perform tests on each other. For two adjacent nodes u and v in $V\left(G\right)$ , the test performed by u on v is represented by the ordered pair $\left(u\mathrm{,}v\right)$ . The outcome of a test $\left(u\mathrm{,}v\right)$ is 1 (resp. 0) if u evaluate v as faulty (resp. fault-free). We assume that the testing result is reliable (resp. unreliable) if the node u is fault-free (resp. faulty). A test assignment T for G is a collection of tests for every adjacent pair of vertices. It can be modeled as a directed testing graph $T=\left(V\left(G\right)\mathrm{,}L\right)$ , where $\left(u\mathrm{,}v\right)\in L$ implies that u and v are adjacent in G. The collection of all test results for a test assignment T is called a syndrome. Formally, a syndrome is a function $\sigma \mathrm{:}L\mapsto \left\{\mathrm{0,1}\right\}$ . The set of all faulty processors in G is called a faulty set. This can be any subset of $V\left(G\right)$ . For a given syndrome s, a subset of vertices $F\subseteq V\left(G\right)$ is said to be consistent with s if syndrome s can be produced from the situation that, for any $\left(u\mathrm{,}v\right)\in L$ such that $u\in V\backslash F$ , $\sigma \left(u\mathrm{,}v\right)\mathrm{=1}$ if and only if $v\in F$ . This means that F is a possible set of faulty processors. Since a test outcome produced by a faulty processor is unreliable, a given set F of faulty vertices may produce a lot of different syndromes. On the other hand, different faulty sets may produce the same syndrome. Let $\sigma \left(F\right)$ denote the set of all syndromes which F is consistent with. Under the PMC model, two distinct sets ${F}_{1}$ and ${F}_{2}$ in $V\left(G\right)$ are said to be indistinguishable if $\sigma \left({F}_{1}\right)\cap \sigma {\left(F\right)}_{2}\ne \varnothing $ , otherwise, ${F}_{1}$ and ${F}_{2}$ are said to be distinguishable. Besides, we say $\left({F}_{1}\mathrm{,}{F}_{2}\right)$ is an indistinguishable pair if $\sigma \left({F}_{1}\right)\cap \sigma {\left(F\right)}_{2}\ne \varnothing $ ; else, $\left({F}_{1}\mathrm{,}{F}_{2}\right)$ is a distinguishable pair.

Using the MM model, the diagnosis is carried out by sending the same testing task to a pair of processors and comparing their responses. We always assume the output of a comparison performed by a faulty processor is unreliable. The comparison scheme of a system $G=\left(V,E\right)$ is modeled as a multigraph, denoted by $M\left(V\left(G\right)\mathrm{,}L\right)$ , where L is the labeled-edge set. A labeled edge ${\left(u\mathrm{,}v\right)}_{w}\in L$ represents a comparison in which two vertices u and v are compared by a vertex w, which implies $uw\mathrm{,}vw\in E\left(G\right)$ . The collection of all comparison results in $M\left(V\left(G\right)\mathrm{,}L\right)$ is called the syndrome, denoted by ${\sigma}^{\mathrm{*}}$ , of the diagnosis. If the comparison ${\left(u\mathrm{,}v\right)}_{w}$ disagrees, then ${\sigma}^{\mathrm{*}}\left({\left(u\mathrm{,}v\right)}_{w}\right)=1$ . otherwise, ${\sigma}^{*}\left({\left(u,v\right)}_{w}\right)=0$ . Hence, a syndrome is a function from L to $\left\{\mathrm{0,1}\right\}$ . The MM* model is a special case of the MM model. In the MM* model, all comparisons of G are in the comparison scheme of G, i.e., if $uw\mathrm{,}vw\in E\left(G\right)$ , then ${\left(u\mathrm{,}v\right)}_{w}\in L$ . Similar to the PMC model, we can define a subset of vertices $F\subseteq V\left(G\right)$ is consistent with a given syndrome ${\sigma}^{\mathrm{*}}$ and two distinct sets ${F}_{1}$ and ${F}_{2}$ in $V\left(G\right)$ are indistinguishable (resp. distinguishable) under the MM* model.

A system $G=\left(V,E\right)$ is g-good-neighbor t-diagnosable if ${F}_{1}$ and ${F}_{2}$ are distinguishable for each distinct pair of g-good-neighbor faulty subsets ${F}_{1}$ and ${F}_{2}$ of V with $\left|{F}_{1}\right|\le t$ and $\left|{F}_{2}\right|\le t$ . The g-good-neighbor diagnosability ${t}_{g}\left(G\right)$ of G is the maximum value of t such that G is g-good-neighbor t-diagnosable.

Proposition 2.3 ( [6] ) For any given system G, ${t}_{g}\left(G\right)\le {t}_{{g}^{\prime}}\left(G\right)$ if $g\le {g}^{\prime}$ .

In a system $G=\left(V,E\right)$ , a faulty set $F\subseteq V$ is called a conditional faulty set if it does not contain all the neighbor vertices of any vertex in G. A system G is conditional t-diagnosable if every two distinct conditional faulty subsets ${F}_{1}\mathrm{,}{F}_{2}\subseteq V$ with $\left|{F}_{1}\right|\le t\mathrm{,}\left|{F}_{2}\right|\le t$ , are distinguishable. The conditional diagnosability ${t}_{c}\left(G\right)$ of G is the maximum number of t such that G is conditional t-diagnosable. By [16] , ${t}_{c}\left(G\right)\ge t\left(G\right)$ .

Theorem 2.4 [10] For a system $G=\left(V\mathrm{,}E\right)$ , $t\left(G\right)={t}_{0}\left(G\right)\le {t}_{1}\left(G\right)\le {t}_{c}\left(G\right)$ .

In [10] , Wang et al. proved that the 1-good-neighbor diagnosability of the Bubble-sort graph ${B}_{n}$ under the PMC model is $2n-3$ for $n\ge 4$ . In [17] , Zhou et al. proved the conditional diagnosability of ${B}_{n}$ is $4n-11$ for $n\ge 4$ under the PMC model. Therefore, ${t}_{1}\left(G\right)<{t}_{c}\left(G\right)$ when $n\ge 5$ and ${t}_{1}\left(G\right)={t}_{c}\left(G\right)$ when $n=4$ .

In a system $G=\left(V\mathrm{,}E\right)$ , a faulty set $F\subseteq V$ is called a g-extra faulty set if every component of $G-F$ has more than g nodes. G is g-extra t -diagnosable if and only if for each pair of distinct faulty g-extra vertex subsets ${F}_{1}\mathrm{,}{F}_{2}\subseteq V\left(G\right)$ such that $\left|{F}_{i}\right|\le t$ , ${F}_{1}$ and ${F}_{2}$ are distinguishable. The g-extra diagnosability of G, denoted by ${\stackrel{\u02dc}{t}}_{g}\left(G\right)$ , is the maximum value of t such that G is g-extra t-diagnosable.

Proposition 2.5 [13] For any given system G, ${\stackrel{\u02dc}{t}}_{g}\left(G\right)\le {\stackrel{\u02dc}{t}}_{{g}^{\prime}}\left(G\right)$ if $g\le {g}^{\prime}$ .

Theorem 2.6 [13] For a system $G=\left(V\mathrm{,}E\right)$ , $t\left(G\right)={\stackrel{\u02dc}{t}}_{0}\left(G\right)\le {\stackrel{\u02dc}{t}}_{g}\left(G\right)\le {t}_{g}\left(G\right)$ .

Theorem 2.7 [13] For a system $G=\left(V\mathrm{,}E\right)$ , ${\stackrel{\u02dc}{t}}_{1}\left(G\right)={t}_{1}\left(G\right)$ .

2.3. Alternating Group Graph

In this section, we give the definition and some properties of the alternating

group graph. In the permutation $\left(\begin{array}{c}1\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}2\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\cdots \text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}n\\ {p}_{1}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}{p}_{2}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\cdots \text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}{p}_{n}\end{array}\right)$ , $i\to {p}_{i}$ . For the convenience, we denote the permutation $\left(\begin{array}{c}1\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}2\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\cdots \text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}n\\ {p}_{1}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}{p}_{2}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\cdots \text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}{p}_{n}\end{array}\right)$ by ${p}_{1}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}{p}_{2}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\cdots \text{\hspace{0.17em}}{p}_{n}$ . Every

permutation can be denoted by a product of cycles [18] . For example,

$\left(\begin{array}{c}1\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}2\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}3\\ 3\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}1\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}2\end{array}\right)=\left(132\right)$ . Specially, $\left(\begin{array}{c}1\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}2\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\cdots \text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}n\\ 1\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}2\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\cdots \text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}n\end{array}\right)=\left(1\right)$ . The product st of two

permutations is the composition function t followed by s, that is, $\left(12\right)\left(13\right)=\left(132\right)$ . For terminology and notation not defined here we follow [18] .

Let $\left[n\right]=\left\{\mathrm{1,2,}\cdots \mathrm{,}n\right\}$ , and let ${S}_{n}$ be the symmetric group on $\left[n\right]$ containing all permutations $p={p}_{1}{p}_{2}\cdots {p}_{n}$ of $\left[n\right]$ . The alternating group ${A}_{n}$ is the subgroup of ${S}_{n}$ containing all even permutations. It is well known that $\left\{\left(12i\right)\mathrm{,}\left(1i2\right)\mathrm{,3}\le i\le n\right\}$ is a generating set for ${A}_{n}$ . The n-dimensional alternating group graph $A{G}_{n}$ is the graph with vertex set $V\left(A{G}_{n}\right)={A}_{n}$ in which two vertices u, v are adjacent if and only if $u=v\left(12i\right)$ or $u=v\left(1i2\right)$ , $3\le i\le n$ . The identity element of ${A}_{n}$ is (1). The graphs $A{G}_{3}$ and $A{G}_{4}$ are depicted in Figure 1. It is easy to see from the definition that $A{G}_{n}$ is a $2\left(n-2\right)$ -regular graph on $n!/2$ vertices.

As a favorable topology structure of interconnection networks, alternating group graphs have been shown to have many desirable properties such as strong hierarchy, high connectivity, small diameter and average distance, etc. For details, see [19] for a comparison of the hypercube, the star graph and the alternating group graph.

Theorem 2.8 ( [19] ) $A{G}_{n}$ is vertex transitive and edge transitive.

Theorem 2.9 ( [20] ) ${\stackrel{\u02dc}{\kappa}}^{\left(2\right)}\left(A{G}_{n}\right)=6n-19$ for $n\ge 5$ .

We can partition $A{G}_{n}$ into n subgraphs $A{G}_{n}^{1},A{G}_{n}^{2}\mathrm{,}\cdots \mathrm{,}A{G}_{n}^{n}$ , where every vertex $u={x}_{1}{x}_{2}\cdots {x}_{n}\in V\left(A{G}_{n}\right)$ has a fixed integer i in the last position ${x}_{n}$ for $i\in \left[n\right]$ . It is obvious that $A{G}_{n}^{i}$ is isomorphic to $A{G}_{n-1}$ for $i\in \left[n\right]$ .

Proposition 2.10 [20] Let $A{G}_{n}^{i}$ be defined as above. Then there are $\left(n-2\right)!$ independent cross-edges between two different $A{G}_{n}^{i}$ ‘s.

Proposition 2.11 [8] $\kappa \left(A{G}_{n}\right)=\delta \left(A{G}_{n}\right)=2n-4$ for $n\ge 3$ . Furthermore, $A{G}_{n}$ is tightly hyper connected for $n\ge 4$ , that is to say, each minimum vertex cut creates exactly two components, one of which is an isolated vertex.

Proposition 2.12 ( [20] ) Let F be a vertex-cut of $A{G}_{n}$ ( $n\ge 5$ ) such that $\left|F\right|\le 6n-20$ . Then, $A{G}_{n}-F$ satisfies one of the following conditions:

1) $A{G}_{n}-F$ has two components, one of which is an isolated vertex or an

Figure 1. $A{G}_{n}$ for n = 3, 4.

edge;

2) $A{G}_{n}-F$ has three components, two of which are isolated vertices.

Proposition 2.13 ( [20] ) Let F be a vertex-cut of $A{G}_{n}$ ( $n\ge 5$ ) such that $\left|F\right|\le 6n-19$ . Then, $A{G}_{n}-F$ satisfies one of the following conditions:

1) $A{G}_{n}-F$ has two components, one of which is an isolated vertex, an edge or a path of length 2;

2) $A{G}_{n}-F$ has three components, two of which are isolated vertices.

Proposition 2.14 [20] For $u\in V\left(A{G}_{n}^{r}\right)$ , ${u}^{+}\in V\left(A{G}_{n}^{i}\right)$ , ${u}^{-}\in V\left(A{G}_{n}^{j}\right)$ for $n\ge 4$ and $i\ne j$ .

Lemma 2.15 ( [21] ) Any 4-cycle in $A{G}_{n}$ has the form ${u}_{1}{u}_{2}{u}_{3}{u}_{4}{u}_{1}$ where ${u}_{2}={u}_{1}\left(12i\right)$ , ${u}_{3}={u}_{2}\left(12j\right)$ , ${u}_{4}={u}_{3}\left(12i\right)$ , ${u}_{1}={u}_{4}\left(12j\right)$ for some $i\mathrm{,}j$ with $i\ne j$ .

3. The 2-Extra Diagnosability of Alternating Group Graphs under the PMC Model

In this section, we will give 2-extra diagnosability of alternating group graph networks under the PMC model.

Theorem 3.1 ( [8] ) A system $G=\left(V\mathrm{,}E\right)$ is g-extra t-diagnosable under the PMC model if and only if there is an edge $uv\in E$ with $u\in V\backslash \left({F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}\right)$ and $v\in {F}_{1}\Delta {F}_{2}$ for each distinct pair of g-extra faulty subsets ${F}_{1}$ and ${F}_{2}$ of V with $\left|{F}_{1}\right|\le t$ and $\left|{F}_{2}\right|\le t$ .

Lemma 3.2 Let $A=\left\{\left(1\right),\left(132\right),\left(142\right)\right\}$ , $n\ge 4$ and let ${F}_{1}={N}_{A{G}_{n}}\left(A\right)$ , ${F}_{2}=A\cup {N}_{A{G}_{n}}\left(A\right)$ . Then $\left|{F}_{1}\right|=6n-19$ , $\left|{F}_{2}\right|=6n-16$ , ${F}_{1}$ is a 2-extra cut of $A{G}_{n}$ , and $A{G}_{n}-{F}_{1}$ has two components $A{G}_{n}-{F}_{2}$ and $A{G}_{n}\left[A\right]$ .

Proof. By $A=\left\{\left(1\right),\left(132\right),\left(142\right)\right\}$ , we have that $A{G}_{n}\left[A\right]$ is a path $\left(132\right)$ , $\left(1\right)$ , $\left(142\right)$ . Suppose $n=4$ . Then $\left|N\left(A\right)\right|=\left|\left\{2314,4132,1423,4321,3241\right\}\right|=5$ (see Figure 1). We prove this lemma (part) by induction on n. The result holds for $n=4$ . Assume $n\ge 5$ and the result holds for $A{G}_{n-1}$ , i.e., $\left|{F}_{1}\right|=6\left(n-1\right)-19=6n-25$ . We decompose $A{G}_{n}$ into n sub-alternating group graph, $A{G}_{n}^{1}\mathrm{,}A{G}_{n}^{2}\mathrm{,}\cdots \mathrm{,}A{G}_{n}^{n}$ , where each $A{G}_{n}^{i}$ has a fixed i in the last position of the label strings which represents the vertices and is isomorphic to $A{G}_{n-1}$ . Note

that $\left|N\left(A\right)\cap V\left(A{G}_{n}^{1}\right)\right|=\left|\left\{\left(12n\right)\mathrm{),}\left(1n\right)\left(23\right)\mathrm{,}\left(1n\right)\left(24\right)\right\}\right|=3$ , $\left|N\left(A\right)\cap V\left(A{G}_{n}^{2}\right)\right|=\left|\left\{\left(1n2\right)\right\}\right|=1$ , $\left|N\left(A\right)\cap V\left(A{G}_{n}^{3}\right)\right|=\left|\left\{\left(2n3\right)\right\}\right|=1$ , $\left|N\left(A\right)\cap V\left(A{G}_{n}^{4}\right)\right|=\left|\left\{\left(2n4\right)\right\}\right|=1$ and $\left|N\left(A\right)\cap V\left(A{G}_{n}^{i}\right)\right|=0$ for $i=5,\cdots ,n-1$ . Therefore, $\left|{F}_{1}\right|=6n-25+6=6n-19$ and $\left|{F}_{2}\right|=6n-16$ .

Let ${F}_{i}^{\mathrm{*}}={F}_{1}\cap V\left(A{G}_{n}^{i}\right)$ for $i\in \left\{\mathrm{1,2,}\cdots \mathrm{,}n\right\}$ . Note that

$A{G}_{4}-{F}_{2}=1342,2143,4213,3412,1342$ is a 4-cycle. We prove this lemma (part) by induction on n. The result holds for $n=4$ . Assume $n\ge 5$ and the result holds for $A{G}_{n-1}$ , i.e., ${F}_{1}$ is a 2-extra cut of $A{G}_{n-1}$ , and $A{G}_{n-1}-{F}_{1}$ has two components $A{G}_{n-1}-{F}_{2}$ and $A{G}_{n-1}\left[A\right]$ . Since $\left|N\left(A\right)\cap V\left(A{G}_{n}^{1}\right)\right|=\left|\left\{\left(12n\right)\mathrm{,}\left(1n\right)\left(23\right)\mathrm{,}\left(1n\right)\left(24\right)\right\}\right|=3$ , $\left|N\left(A\right)\cap V\left(A{G}_{n}^{2}\right)\right|=\left|\left\{\left(1n2\right)\right\}\right|=1$ , $\left|N\left(A\right)\cap V\left(A{G}_{n}^{3}\right)\right|=\left|\left\{\left(2n3\right)\right\}\right|=1$ , $\left|N\left(A\right)\cap V\left(A{G}_{n}^{4}\right)\right|=\left|\left\{\left(2n4\right)\right\}\right|=1$ and $\left|N\left(A\right)\cap V\left(A{G}_{n}^{i}\right)\right|=0$ for $i=5,\cdots ,n-1$ , by Propositions 2.10 and 2.11, $A{G}_{n}\left[V\left(A{G}_{n}^{2}-{F}_{2}^{\mathrm{*}}\right)\cup V\left(A{G}_{n}^{3}-{F}_{3}^{\mathrm{*}}\right)\cup \cdots \cup V\left(A{G}_{n}^{n}-{F}_{n}^{\mathrm{*}}\right)\right]$ is connected for $n\ge 5$ . By inductive hypothesis, $A{G}_{n-1}-{F}_{2}$ is connected. Since ${F}_{i}^{\mathrm{*}}={F}_{1}\cap V\left(A{G}_{n}^{i}\right)$ , by Proposition 2.14, $\left(N\left(x\right)\cap V\left(A{G}_{n}^{i}\right)\right)\cap {F}_{i}^{\mathrm{*}}=\varnothing $ for $x\in V\left(A{G}_{n-1}-{F}_{2}\right)$ . Therefore, $A{G}_{n}\left[V\left(A{G}_{n}^{1}-{F}_{2}\right)\cup V\left(A{G}_{n}^{2}-{F}_{2}^{\mathrm{*}}\right)\cup V\left(A{G}_{n}^{3}-{F}_{3}^{\mathrm{*}}\right)\cup \cdots \cup V\left(A{G}_{n}^{n}-{F}_{n}^{\mathrm{*}}\right)\right]=A{G}_{n}-{F}_{2}$ is connected. Note that $\left|V\left(A{G}_{n}-{F}_{2}\right)\right|\ge 3$ and $\left|V\left(A{G}_{n}\left[A\right]\right)\right|=3$ . Therefore, ${F}_{1}$ is a 2-extra cut of $A{G}_{n}$ , and $A{G}_{n}-{F}_{1}$ has two components $A{G}_{n}-{F}_{2}$ and $A{G}_{n}\left[A\right]$ . The proof is complete.

A connected graph G is super g-extra connected if every minimum g-extra cut F of G isolates one connected subgraph of order $g+1$ . If, in addition, $G-F$ has two components, one of which is the connected subgraph of order $g+1$ , then G is tightly super g-extra connected.

Corollary 3.3 Let $n\ge 5$ . Then $A{G}_{n}$ is tightly $\left(6n-19\right)$ super 2-extra connected.

Proof. Let ${F}_{1}\subseteq {A}_{n}$ . By Lemma 3.2, there is one $\left|{F}_{1}\right|=6n-19$ such that F is a 2-extra cut of $A{G}_{n}$ . Let F be a minimum 2-extra cut of $A{G}_{n}$ ( $n\ge 5$ ). Then $\left|F\right|\le \left|{F}_{1}\right|$ . Suppose that $\left|F\right|\le 6n-20$ . By Lemma 3.3, F is not a 2-extra cut of $A{G}_{n}$ . Therefore, $\left|F\right|\mathrm{=6}n-19$ . Since F is a 2-extra cut of $A{G}_{n}$ , by Lemma 2.14, $A{G}_{n}-F$ has two components, one of which is a path of order 3. The proof is complete.

Lemma 3.4 Let $n\ge 4$ . Then the 2-extra diagnosability of the n-dimensional alternating group graph $A{G}_{n}$ under the PMC model, ${\stackrel{\u02dc}{t}}_{2}\left(A{G}_{n}\right)\le 6n-17$ .

Proof. Let $A=\left\{\left(1\right),\left(132\right),\left(142\right)\right\}$ , and let ${F}_{1}={N}_{A{G}_{n}}\left(A\right)$ , ${F}_{2}=A\cup {N}_{A{G}_{n}}\left(A\right)$ . By Lemma 3.2, $\left|{F}_{1}\right|=6n-19$ , $\left|{F}_{2}\right|=6n-16$ , ${F}_{1}$ is a 2-extra cut of $A{G}_{n}$ , and $A{G}_{n}-{F}_{1}$ has two components $A{G}_{n}-{F}_{2}$ and $A{G}_{n}\left[A\right]$ . Therefore, ${F}_{1}$ and ${F}_{2}$ are both 2-extra faulty sets of $A{G}_{n}$ with $\left|{F}_{1}\right|=6n-19$ and $\left|{F}_{2}\right|=6n-16$ . Since $A={F}_{1}\Delta {F}_{2}$ and ${N}_{A{G}_{n}}\left(A\right)={F}_{1}\subset {F}_{2}$ , there is no edge of $A{G}_{n}$ between $V\left(A{G}_{n}\right)\backslash \left({F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}\right)$ and ${F}_{1}\Delta {F}_{2}$ . By Theorem 3.1, we can deduce that $A{G}_{n}$ is not 2-extra $\mathrm{(6}n-\mathrm{16)}$ -diagnosable under PMC model. Hence, by the definition of 2-extra diagnosability, we conclude that the 2-extra diagnosability of $A{G}_{n}$ is less than $6n-16$ , i.e., ${\stackrel{\u02dc}{t}}_{2}\left(A{G}_{n}\right)\le 6n-17$ . The proof is complete.

Lemma 3.5 Let $n\ge 5$ . Then the 2-extra of the n-dimensional alternating group graph $A{G}_{n}$ under the PMC model, ${\stackrel{\u02dc}{t}}_{2}\left(A{G}_{n}\right)\ge 6n-17$ .

Proof. By the definition of 2-extra diagnosability, it is sufficient to show that $A{G}_{n}$ is 2-extra $\left(6n-17\right)$ -diagnosable. By Theorem 3.1, to prove $A{G}_{n}$ is 2-extra $\left(6n-17\right)$ -diagnosable, it is equivalent to prove that there is an edge $uv\in E\left(A{G}_{n}\right)$ with $u\in V\left(A{G}_{n}\right)\backslash \left({F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}\right)$ and $v\in {F}_{1}\Delta {F}_{2}$ for each distinct pair of 2-extra faulty subsets ${F}_{1}$ and ${F}_{2}$ of $V\left(A{G}_{n}\right)$ with $\left|{F}_{1}\right|\le 6n-17$ and $\left|{F}_{2}\right|\le 6n-17$ .

We prove this statement by contradiction. Suppose that there are two distinct 2-extra faulty subsets ${F}_{1}$ and ${F}_{2}$ of $A{G}_{n}$ with $\left|{F}_{1}\right|\le 6n-17$ and $\left|{F}_{2}\right|\le 6n-17$ , but the vertex set pair $\left({F}_{1}\mathrm{,}{F}_{2}\right)$ is not satisfied with the condition in Theorem 3.1, i.e., there are no edges between $V\left(A{G}_{n}\right)\backslash \left({F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}\right)$ and ${F}_{1}\Delta {F}_{2}$ . Without loss of generality, assume that ${F}_{2}\backslash {F}_{1}\ne \varnothing $ . Assume $V\left(A{G}_{n}\right)={F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}$ . By the definition of ${A}_{n}$ , $\left|{F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}\right|=\left|{A}_{n}\right|=n!/2$ . We claim that $n!/2>12n-34$ for $n\ge 5$ , i.e., $n!>24n-68$ for $n\ge 5$ . When $n=5$ , $n!=120$ , $24n-68=52$ . So $n!>24n-68$ for $n=5$ . Assume that $n!>24n-68$ for $n\ge 5$ . $\left(n+1\right)!=n!\left(n+1\right)>\left(n+1\right)\left(24n-68\right)=n\left(24n-68\right)+\left(24n-44\right)-24=$ $\left[24\left(n+1\right)-68\right]+n\left(24n-68\right)-24=\left[24\left(n+1\right)-68\right]+4\left(6{n}^{2}-17n-6\right)$ . It is sufficient to show that $6{n}^{2}-17n-6\ge 0$ for $n\ge 5$ . Let $y=6{x}^{2}-17x-6$ . Then $y=6{x}^{2}-17x-6$ is a quadratic function. When $x\ge 5$ , $y=6{x}^{2}-17x-6\ge 0$ .

Since $n\ge 5$ , we have that $n!/2=\left|V\left(A{G}_{n}\right)\right|=\left|{F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}\right|=\left|{F}_{1}\right|+\left|{F}_{2}\right|-\left|{F}_{1}\cap {F}_{2}\right|\le $ $\left|{F}_{1}\right|+\left|{F}_{2}\right|\le 2\left(6n-17\right)=12n-34$ , a contradiction to $n!/2>12n-34$ . Therefore, let $V\left(A{G}_{n}\right)\ne {F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}$ as follows.

Since there are no edges between $V\left(A{G}_{n}\right)\backslash \left({F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}\right)$ and ${F}_{1}\Delta {F}_{2}$ , and ${F}_{1}$ is a 2-extra faulty set, $A{G}_{n}-{F}_{1}$ has two parts $A{G}_{n}-{F}_{1}-{F}_{2}$ and $A{G}_{n}\left[{F}_{2}\backslash {F}_{1}\right]$ (for convenience). Thus, every component ${G}_{i}$ of $A{G}_{n}-{F}_{1}-{F}_{2}$ has $\left|V\left({G}_{i}\right)\right|\ge 3$ and every component ${{B}^{\prime}}_{i}$ of $A{G}_{n}\left[{F}_{2}\backslash {F}_{1}\right]$ has $\left|V\left({{B}^{\prime}}_{i}\right)\right|\ge 3$ . Similarly, every component ${{B}^{\u2033}}_{i}$ of $A{G}_{n}\left[{F}_{1}\backslash {F}_{2}\right]$ has $\left|V\left({B}^{\u2033}\right)\right|\ge 3$ when ${F}_{1}\backslash {F}_{2}\ne \varnothing $ . Therefore, ${F}_{1}\cap {F}_{2}$ is also a 2-extra faulty set of $A{G}_{n}$ . Note that ${F}_{1}\cap {F}_{2}={F}_{1}$ is also a 2-extra faulty set when ${F}_{1}\backslash {F}_{2}=\varnothing $ . Since there are no edges between $V\left(A{G}_{n}-{F}_{1}-{F}_{2}\right)$ and ${F}_{1}\Delta {F}_{2}$ , ${F}_{1}\cap {F}_{2}$ is a 2-extra cut of $A{G}_{n}$ . If ${F}_{1}\cap {F}_{2}=\varnothing $ , this is a contradiction to that $A{G}_{n}$ is connected. Therefore, ${F}_{1}\cap {F}_{2}\ne \varnothing $ . Since $n\ge 5$ , by Theorem 2.9, $\left|{F}_{1}\cap {F}_{2}\right|\ge 6n-19$ . Therefore, $\left|{F}_{2}\right|=\left|{F}_{2}\backslash {F}_{1}\right|+\left|{F}_{1}\cap {F}_{2}\right|\ge 3+6n-19=6n-16$ , which contradicts with that $\left|{F}_{2}\right|\le 6n-17$ . So $A{G}_{n}$ is 2-extra $\left(6n-17\right)$ -diagnosable. By the definition of ${\stackrel{\u02dc}{t}}_{2}\left(A{G}_{n}\right)$ , ${\stackrel{\u02dc}{t}}_{2}\left(A{G}_{n}\right)\ge 6n-17$ . The proof is complete.

Combining Lemma 3.4 and 3.5, we have the following theorem.

Theorem 3.6 Let $n\ge 5$ . Then the 2-extra diagnosability of the n-dimensional alternating group graph $A{G}_{n}$ under the PMC model is $6n-17$ .

4. The 2-Extra Diagnosability of Alternating Group Graphs under the MM* Model

Before discussing the 2-extra diagnosability of the n-dimensional alternating group graph $A{G}_{n}$ under the MM* model, we first give a theorem.

Theorem 4.1 ( [1] [18] ) A system $G=\left(V,E\right)$ is g-extra t-diagnosable under the MM* model if and only if for each distinct pair of g-extra faulty subsets ${F}_{1}$ and ${F}_{2}$ of V with $\left|{F}_{1}\right|\le t$ and $\left|{F}_{2}\right|\le t$ satisfies one of the following conditions.

1) There are two vertices $u\mathrm{,}w\in V\backslash \left({F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}\right)$ and there is a vertex $v\in {F}_{1}\Delta {F}_{2}$ such that $uw\in E$ and $vw\in E$ .

2) There are two vertices $u\mathrm{,}v\in {F}_{1}\backslash {F}_{2}$ and there is a vertex $w\in V\backslash \left({F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}\right)$ such that $uw\in E$ and $vw\in E$ .

3) There are two vertices $u\mathrm{,}v\in {F}_{2}\backslash {F}_{1}$ and there is a vertex $w\in V\backslash \left({F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}\right)$ such that $uw\in E$ and $vw\in E$ .

Lemma 4.2 Let $n\ge 5$ . Then the 2-extra diagnosability of the n-dimensional alternating group graph $A{G}_{n}$ under the MM* model, ${\stackrel{\u02dc}{t}}_{2}\left(A{G}_{n}\right)\le 6n-17$ .

Proof. Let $A=\left\{\left(1\right),\left(132\right),\left(142\right)\right\}$ , and let ${F}_{1}={N}_{A{G}_{n}}\left(A\right)$ , ${F}_{2}=A\cup {N}_{A{G}_{n}}\left(A\right)$ . By Lemma 3.2, $\left|{F}_{1}\right|=6n-19$ , $\left|{F}_{2}\right|=6n-16$ , ${F}_{1}$ is a 2-extra cut of $A{G}_{n}$ , and $A{G}_{n}-{F}_{1}$ has two components $A{G}_{n}-{F}_{2}$ and $A{G}_{n}\left[A\right]$ . Therefore, ${F}_{1}$ and ${F}_{2}$ are both 2-extra faulty sets of $A{G}_{n}$ with $\left|{F}_{1}\right|=6n-19$ and $\left|{F}_{2}\right|=6n-16$ . By the definitions of ${F}_{1}$ and ${F}_{2}$ , ${F}_{1}\Delta {F}_{2}=A$ . Note ${F}_{1}\backslash {F}_{2}=\varnothing $ , ${F}_{2}\backslash {F}_{1}=A$ and $\left(V\left(A{G}_{n}\right)\backslash \left({F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}\right)\right)\cap A=\varnothing $ . Therefore, both ${F}_{1}$ and ${F}_{2}$ are not satisfied with any one condition in Theorem 4.1, and $A{G}_{n}$ is not 2-extra $\left(6n-16\right)$ diagnosable. Hence, ${\stackrel{\u02dc}{t}}_{2}\left(A{G}_{n}\right)\le 6n-17$ . Thus, the proof is complete.

A component of a graph G is odd according as it has an odd number of vertices. We denote by $o\left(G\right)$ the number of add component of G.

Lemma 4.3 ( [13] Tutte’s Theorem) A graph $G=\left(V,E\right)$ has a perfect matching if and only if $o\left(G-S\right)\le \left|S\right|$ for all $S\subseteq V$ .

Lemma 4.4 Let $n\ge 4$ . Then $A{G}_{n}$ has a perfect matching.

Proof. Note that a perfect matching of $A{G}_{4}$ is $\{\left[\mathrm{1342,4132}\right]\mathrm{,}\left[\mathrm{2431,1234}\right]\mathrm{,}$ $\left[\mathrm{3241,4321}\right]\mathrm{,}\left[\mathrm{1423,3124}\right]\mathrm{,}\left[\mathrm{3412,2314}\right]\mathrm{,}\left[\mathrm{2143,4213}\right]\}$ (see Figure 1). We prove this lemma by induction on n. The result holds for $n=4$ . Assume $n\ge 5$ and the result holds for $A{G}_{n-1}$ , i.e., $A{G}_{n-1}$ has a perfect matching. We decompose $A{G}_{n}$ into n sub-alternating group graph, $A{G}_{n}^{1}\mathrm{,}A{G}_{n}^{2}\mathrm{,}\cdots \mathrm{,}A{G}_{n}^{n}$ , where each $A{G}_{n}^{i}$ has a fixed i in the last position of the label strings which represents the vertices and is isomorphic to $A{G}_{n-1}$ . Therefore, $A{G}_{n}^{i}$ has a perfect matching. Let ${M}_{i}$ be a perfect matching of $A{G}_{n}^{i}$ . Then ${M}_{1}\cup \cdots \cup {M}_{n}$ is a perfect matching of $A{G}_{n}$ . The proof is complete.

Lemma 4.5 Let $n\ge 5$ . Then the 2-extra diagnosability of the n-dimensional alternating group graph $A{G}_{n}$ under the MM* model, ${\stackrel{\u02dc}{t}}_{2}\left(A{G}_{n}\right)\ge 6n-17$ .

Proof. By the definition of 2-extra diagnosability, it is sufficient to show that $A{G}_{n}$ is 2-extra $\left(6n-17\right)$ -diagnosable.

Suppose, on the contrary, that there are two distinct 2-extra faulty subsets ${F}_{1}$ and ${F}_{2}$ of $A{G}_{n}$ with $\left|{F}_{1}\right|\le 6n-17$ and $\left|{F}_{2}\right|\le 6n-17$ , but the vertex set pair $\left({F}_{1}\mathrm{,}{F}_{2}\right)$ is not satisfied with any one condition in Theorem 4.1. Without loss of generality, assume that ${F}_{2}\backslash {F}_{1}\ne \varnothing $ . Assume $V\left(A{G}_{n}\right)={F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}$ . By the definition of ${A}_{n}$ , $\left|{F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}\right|=\left|{A}_{n}\right|=n!/2$ . Similar to the discussion on $V\left(A{G}_{n}\right)\ne {F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}$ in Lemma 3.5, we can deduce $V\left(A{G}_{n}\right)={F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}$ . Therefore, $V\left(A{G}_{n}\right)\ne {F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}$ .

Claim 1. $A{G}_{n}-{F}_{1}-{F}_{2}$ has no isolated vertex.

Suppose, on the contrary, that $A{G}_{n}-{F}_{1}-{F}_{2}$ has at least one isolated vertex ${w}_{1}$ . Since ${F}_{1}$ is one 2-extra faulty set, there is a vertex $u\in {F}_{2}\backslash {F}_{1}$ such that u is adjacent to ${w}_{1}$ . Meanwhile, since the vertex set pair $\left({F}_{1}\mathrm{,}{F}_{2}\right)$ is not satisfied with any one condition in Theorem 4.1, by the condition (3) of Theorem 4.1, there is at most one vertex $u\in {F}_{2}\backslash {F}_{1}$ such that u is adjacent to ${w}_{1}$ . Thus, there is just a vertex $u\in {F}_{2}\backslash {F}_{1}$ such that u is adjacent to ${w}_{1}$ . If ${F}_{1}\backslash {F}_{2}=\varnothing $ , then ${F}_{1}\subseteq {F}_{2}$ . Since ${F}_{2}$ is a 2-extra faulty set, every component ${G}_{i}$ of $A{G}_{n}-{F}_{1}-{F}_{2}=A{G}_{n}-{F}_{2}$ has $\left|V\left({G}_{i}\right)\right|\ge 3$ . Therefore, $A{G}_{n}-{F}_{1}-{F}_{2}$ has no isolated vertex. Thus, let ${F}_{1}\backslash {F}_{2}\ne \varnothing $ . Similarly, we can deduce that there is just a vertex $a\in {F}_{1}\backslash {F}_{2}$ such that a is adjacent to ${w}_{1}$ . Let $W\subseteq {A}_{n}\backslash \left({F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}\right)$ be the set of isolated vertices in $A{G}_{n}\left[{A}_{n}\backslash \left({F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}\right)\right]$ , and let H be the induced subgraph by the vertex set ${A}_{n}\backslash \left({F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}\cup W\right)$ . Then for any $w\in W$ , there are $\left(2n-6\right)$ neighbors in ${F}_{1}\cap {F}_{2}$ .

By Lemmas 4.3 and 4.4, $\left|W\right|\le o\left(A{G}_{n}-\left({F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}\right)\right)\le \left|{F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}\right|=\left|{F}_{1}\right|+\left|{F}_{2}\right|-$ $\left|{F}_{1}\cap {F}_{2}\right|\le 2\left(6n-17\right)-\left(2n-6\right)=10n-28$ . Since $n\ge 5$ , $n!/4>10n-28$ . Therefore, $\left|W\right|\le n!/4$ . Suppose $V\left(H\right)=\varnothing $ . Then $n!/2=\left|V\left(A{G}_{n}\right)\right|=\left|{F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}\right|+$ $\left|W\right|=\left|{F}_{1}\right|+\left|{F}_{2}\right|-\left|{F}_{1}\cap {F}_{2}\right|+\left|W\right|\le 2\left(6n-17\right)-\left(2n-6\right)+\left|W\right|=10n-28+\left|W\right|<n!/4$ $+10n-28$ and hence $n!/4<10n-28$ , a contradiction to that $n\ge 5$ . So $V\left(H\right)\ne \varnothing $ .

Since the vertex set pair $\left({F}_{1}\mathrm{,}{F}_{2}\right)$ is not satisfied with the condition (1) of Theorem 4.1, and any vertex of $V\left(H\right)$ is not isolated in H, we induce that there is no edge between $V\left(H\right)$ and ${F}_{1}\Delta {F}_{2}$ . Thus, ${F}_{1}$ is a vertex cut of $A{G}_{n}$ . Since ${F}_{1}$ is a 2-extra faulty set of $A{G}_{n}$ , we have that every component ${H}_{i}$ of H has $\left|V\left({H}_{i}\right)\right|\ge 3$ and every component ${B}_{i}$ of $A{G}_{n}\left[W\cup \left({F}_{2}\backslash {F}_{1}\right)\right]$ has $\left|V\left({B}_{i}\right)\right|\ge 3$ . Therefore, ${F}_{1}$ is also a 2-extra cut of $A{G}_{n}$ . If ${F}_{1}\cap {F}_{2}=\varnothing $ , then this is a contradiction to that $A{G}_{n}$ is connected. Therefore, ${F}_{1}\cap {F}_{2}\ne \varnothing $ . By Theorem 2.9, $\left|{F}_{1}\right|\ge 6n-19$ . Since $\left|{F}_{1}\right|\le 6n-17$ , we have $6n-19\le \left|{F}_{1}\right|\le 6n-17$ . Since every component ${B}_{i}$ of $A{G}_{n}\left[W\cup \left({F}_{2}\backslash {F}_{1}\right)\right]$ has $\left|V\left({B}_{i}\right)\right|\ge 3$ , we have $\left|{F}_{2}\backslash {F}_{1}\right|\ge 2$ and hence $\left|{F}_{1}\right|=6n-17$ and $\left|{F}_{2}\backslash {F}_{1}\right|=2$ . Since ${F}_{2}$ is a 2-extra faulty set of $A{G}_{n}$ , we have that $W=\varnothing $ when ${F}_{1}\backslash {F}_{2}=\varnothing $ . Therefore, let ${F}_{1}\backslash {F}_{2}\overline{)=}\varnothing $ . Similarly, we can deduce that ${F}_{2}$ is also a 2-extra cut of $A{G}_{n}$ , $\left|{F}_{2}\right|=6n-17$ and $\left|{F}_{1}\backslash {F}_{2}\right|=2$ . Let ${F}_{2}\backslash {F}_{1}=\left\{u,v\right\}$ , ${F}_{1}\backslash {F}_{2}=\left\{a,b\right\}$ , and let $vu{w}_{1}ab$ be a path in $A{G}_{n}$ (see Figure 2).

Since there is no edge between $V\left(H\right)$ and ${F}_{1}\Delta {F}_{2}$ , $V\left(H\right)\ne \varnothing $ and ${F}_{2}\backslash {F}_{1}\ne \varnothing $ , ${F}_{1}\cap {F}_{2}$ is a cut of $A{G}_{n}$ . By the above result, $\left|{F}_{1}\cap {F}_{2}\right|=6n-19$ . Since every component ${H}_{i}$ of H has $\left|V\left({H}_{i}\right)\right|\ge 3$ , every component ${B}_{i}$ of $A{G}_{n}\left[W\cup \left({F}_{2}\backslash {F}_{1}\right)\right]$ has $\left|V\left({B}_{i}\right)\right|\ge 3$ and every component ${{B}^{\prime}}_{i}$ of $A{G}_{n}\left[W\cup \left({F}_{2}\backslash {F}_{1}\right)\right]$ has $\left|V\left({{B}^{\prime}}_{i}\right)\right|\ge 3$ , we have that every component ${H}_{i}$ of H has $\left|V\left({H}_{i}\right)\right|\ge 3$ and every component ${G}_{i}$ of $A{G}_{n}\left[W\cup \left({F}_{2}\backslash {F}_{1}\right)\cup \left({F}_{1}\backslash {F}_{2}\right)\right]$ has $\left|V\left({G}_{i}\right)\right|\ge 3$ . By Theorem 2.9, ${\stackrel{\u02dc}{\kappa}}^{\left(2\right)}\left(A{G}_{n}\right)=6n-19$ and ${F}_{1}\cap {F}_{2}$ is a minimum 2-extra cut of $A{G}_{n}$ . Therefore, $\left|{F}_{1}\cap {F}_{2}\right|=6n-19$ . By Corollary 3.3, $A{G}_{n}$ is tightly $\left(6n-19\right)$ super 2-extra connected, i.e., $A{G}_{n}-\left({F}_{1}\cap {F}_{2}\right)$ has two components, one of which is the path of length 3. Since $\left|{F}_{2}\backslash {F}_{1}\right|+\left|{F}_{1}\backslash {F}_{2}\right|+\left|W\right|\ge 5$ , we have that $\left|V\left(A{G}_{n}-{F}_{1}-{F}_{2}-W\right)\right|=3$ . Thus,

$n!/2=\left|V\left(A{G}_{n}\right)\right|=\left|V\left(A{G}_{n}-{F}_{1}-{F}_{2}-W\right)\right|+\left|{F}_{2}\backslash {F}_{1}\right|+\left|{F}_{1}\backslash {F}_{2}\right|+\left|W\right|+\left|{F}_{2}\cap {F}_{1}\right|<3+$ $2+2+n!/4+6n-19=6n-12+n!/4$ and hence $n!/4<6n-12$ , a contradiction to $n\ge 5$ . The proof Claim 1 is complete.

Let $u\in V\left(A{G}_{n}\right)\backslash \left({F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}\right)$ . By Claim 1, u has at least one neighbor in $A{G}_{n}-{F}_{1}-{F}_{2}$ . Since the vertex set pair $\left({F}_{1}\mathrm{,}{F}_{2}\right)$ is not satisfied with any one condition in Theorem 4.1, by the condition (1) of Theorem 4.1, for any pair of adjacent vertices $u\mathrm{,}w\in V\left(A{G}_{n}\right)\backslash \left({F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}\right)$ , there is no vertex $v\in {F}_{1}\Delta {F}_{2}$ such that $uw\in E\left(A{G}_{n}\right)$ and $vw\in E\left(A{G}_{n}\right)$ . It follows that u has no neighbor in ${F}_{1}\Delta {F}_{2}$ . By the arbitrariness of u, there is no edge between $V\left(A{G}_{n}\right)\backslash \left({F}_{1}\cup {F}_{2}\right)$ and ${F}_{1}\Delta {F}_{2}$ . Since ${F}_{2}\backslash {F}_{1}\ne \varnothing $ and ${F}_{1}$ is a 2-extra faulty set, every component ${H}_{i}$ of $A{G}_{n}-{F}_{1}-{F}_{2}$ has $\left|V\left({H}_{i}\right)\right|\ge 3$ and every component ${G}_{i}$ of $A{G}_{n}\left(\left[{F}_{2}\backslash {F}_{1}\right]\right)$ has $\left|V\left({G}_{i}\right)\right|\ge 3$ . Suppose that ${F}_{1}\backslash {F}_{2}\mathrm{=}\varnothing $ . Then ${F}_{1}\cap {F}_{2}={F}_{1}$ . Since ${F}_{1}$ is a 2-extra faulty set of $A{G}_{n}$ , we have that ${F}_{1}\cap {F}_{2}\mathrm{=}{F}_{1}$ is a 2-extra faulty set of $A{G}_{n}$ . Since $\left|V\left(A{G}_{n}-{F}_{1}-{F}_{2}\right)\right|=\left|V\left(A{G}_{n}-{F}_{2}\right)\right|\ge 3$ and $\mathrm{|}{F}_{2}\backslash {F}_{1}\mathrm{|}\ge 3$ , ${F}_{1}\cap {F}_{2}={F}_{1}$ is a 2-extra cut of $A{G}_{n}$ . Suppose that ${F}_{1}\backslash {F}_{2}\ne \varnothing $ . If ${F}_{1}\cap {F}_{2}=\varnothing $ , then this is a contradiction to that $A{G}_{n}$ is connected. Therefore,

Figure 2. Illustration of one isolated vertex w_{1}.

${F}_{1}\cap {F}_{2}\ne \varnothing $ . Similarly, every component ${B}_{i}$ of $A{G}_{n}\left(\left[{F}_{1}\backslash {F}_{2}\right]\right)$ has $\left|V\left({B}_{i}\right)\right|\ge 3$ . Therefore, ${F}_{1}\cap {F}_{2}$ is a 2-extra cut of $A{G}_{n}$ . By Theorem 2.9, we have $\left|{F}_{1}\cap {F}_{2}\right|\ge 6n-19$ . Therefore, $\left|{F}_{2}\right|=\left|{F}_{2}\backslash {F}_{1}\right|+\left|{F}_{1}\cap {F}_{2}\right|\ge 3+\left(6n-19\right)=6n-16$ , which contradicts $\left|{F}_{2}\right|\le 6n-17$ . Therefore, $A{G}_{n}$ is 2-extra $\left(6n-17\right)$ diagnosable and ${\stackrel{\u02dc}{t}}_{2}\left(A{G}_{n}\right)\ge 6n-17$ . The proof is complete.

Combining Lemma 4.2 and 4.5, we have the following theorem.

Theorem 4.6 Let $n\ge 5$ . Then the 2-extra diagnosability of the the n-dimensional alternating group graph $A{G}_{n}$ the MM* model is $6n-17$ .

5. Conclusion

In this paper, we investigate the problem of 2-extra diagnosability of the n-dimensional alternating group graph $A{G}_{n}$ under the PMC model and MM* model. It is proved that 2-extra diagnosability of the n-dimensional alternating group graph $A{G}_{n}$ under the PMC model and MM* model is $6n-17$ , where $n\ge 5$ . The above results show that the 2-extra diagnosability is several times larger than the classical diagnosability of $A{G}_{n}$ depending on the condition: 2-extra. The work will help engineers to develop more different measures of 2-extra diagnosability based on application environment, network topology, network reliability, and statistics related to fault patterns.

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61772010).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

[1] |
Dahbura, A.T. and Masson, G.M. (1984) An Fault Identification Algorithm for Diagnosable Systems. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 33, 486-492. https://doi.org/10.1109/TC.1984.1676472 |

[2] |
Fan, J. (2002) Diagnosability of Crossed Cubes under the Comparison Diagnosis Model. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 13, 1099-1104. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPDS.2002.1041887 |

[3] |
Lai, P.-L., Tan, J.J.M., Chang, C.-P. and Hsu, L.-H. (2005) Conditional Diagnosability Measures for Large Multiprocessor Systems. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 54, 165-175. https://doi.org/10.1109/TC.2005.19 |

[4] |
Preparata, F.P., Metze, G. and Chien, R.T. (1967) On the Connection Assignment Problem of Diagnosable Systems. IEEE Transactions on Computers, EC-16, 848-854. https://doi.org/10.1109/PGEC.1967.264748 |

[5] | Maeng, J. and Malek, M. (1981) A Comparison Connection Assignment for Self-Diagnosis of Multiprocessor Systems. Proceeding of 11th International Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing, 173-175. |

[6] |
Peng, S.-L., Lin, C.-K., Tan, J.J.M. and Hsu, L.-H. (2012) The g-Good-Neighbor Conditional Diagnosability of Hypercube under PMC Model. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 218, 10406-10412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2012.03.092 |

[7] |
Wang, S. and Han, W. (2016) The g-Good-Neighbor Conditional Diagnosability of n-Dimensional Hypercubes under the MM* Model. Information Processing Letters, 116, 574-577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipl.2016.04.005 |

[8] |
Yuan, J., Liu, A., Ma, X., Liu, X., Qin, X. and Zhang, J. (2015) The g-Good-Neighbor Conditional Diagnosability of k-Ary n-Cubes under the PMC Model and MM* Model. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 26, 1165-1177. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPDS.2014.2318305 |

[9] |
Yuan, J., Liu, A., Qin, X., Zhang, J. and Li, J. (2016) g-Good-neighbor Conditional Diagnosability Measures for 3-Ary n-Cube Networks. Theoretical Computer Science, 622, 144-162. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2016.01.046 |

[10] |
Wang, M., Guo, Y. and Wang, S. (2017) The 1-Good-Neighbor Diagnosability of Cayley Graphs Generated by Transposition Trees under the PMC Model and MM* Model. International Journal of Computer Mathematics, 94, 620-631. http://doi.org/10.1080/00207160.2015.1119817 |

[11] |
Wang, M., Lin, Y. and Wang, S. (2016) The 2-Good-Neighbor Diagnosability of Cayley Graphs Generated by Transposition Trees under the PMC Model and MM* Model. Theoretical Computer Science, 628, 92-100. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2016.03.019 |

[12] |
Zhang, S. and Yang, W. (2016) The g-Extra Conditional Diagnosability and Sequential t/k-Diagnosability of Hypercubes. International Journal of Computer Mathematics, 93, 482-497. http://doi.org/10.1080/00207160.2015.1020796 |

[13] |
Wang, S., Wang, Z. and Wang, M. (2016) The 2-Extra Connectivity and 2-Extra Diagnosability of Bubble-Sort Star Graph Networks. The Computer Journal, 59, 1839-1856. https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxw037 |

[14] | Bondy, J.A. and Murty, U.S.R. (2007) Graph Theory. Springer, New York. |

[15] |
Ren, Y. and Wang, S. (2016) Some Properties of the G-Good-Neighbor (G-Extra) Diagnosability of a Multiprocessor System. American Journal of Computational Mathematics, 6, 259-266. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajcm.2016.63027 |

[16] |
Hsieh, S.-Y. and Kao, C.-Y. (2013) The Conditional Diagnosability of k-Ary n-Cubes under the Comparison Diagnosis Model. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 62, 839-843. https://doi.org/10.1109/TC.2012.18 |

[17] |
Zhou, S., Wang, J., Xu, X. and Xu, J.-M. (2013) Conditional Fault Diagnosis of Bubble Sort Graphs under the PMC Model. Intelligence Computation and Evolutionary Computation, 180, 53-59. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31656-2_8 |

[18] | Hungerford, T.W. (1974) Algebra. Springer-Verlag, New York. |

[19] |
Jwo, J.-S., Lakshmivarahan, S. and Dhall, S.K. (1993) A New Class of Interconnection Networks Based on the Alternating Group. Networks, 23, 315-326. https://doi.org/10.1002/net.3230230414 |

[20] |
Lin, L., Zhou, S. and Xu, L. (2015) The Extra Connectivity and Conditional Diagnosability of Alternating Group Networks. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 26, 2352-2362. http://doi.org/10.1109/TPDS.2014.2347961 |

[21] |
Zhang, Z., Xiong, W. and Yang, W. (2010) A Kind of Conditional Fault Tolerance of Alternating Groups. Information Processing Letters, 110, 998-1002. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipl.2010.08.010 |

Journals Menu

Contact us

customer@scirp.org | |

+86 18163351462(WhatsApp) | |

1655362766 | |

Paper Publishing WeChat |

Copyright © 2022 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.