^{1}

^{*}

^{1}

Diagnosability of a multiprocessor system is one important study topic. In 2015, Zhang
<i>
et al.
</i>
proposed a new measure for fault diagnosis of the system, namely,
<i>g</i>
-extra diagnosability, which restrains that every fault-free component has at least
(<i>g</i> + 1)
fault-free nodes. As a favorable topology structure of interconnection networks, the
<i>n</i>
-dimensional alternating group graph
<i>AG_{n</i>}
has many good properties. In this paper, we give that the 2-extra diagnosability of
<i>AG_{n</i>}
is
6<i>n</i> - 17
for
<i>n</i>
≥
5
under the PMC model and MM
*
model.

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 [

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. [

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 6 n − 17 for n ≥ 5 under the PMC model and MM* model.

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

A multiprocessor system is modeled as an undirected simple graph G = ( V , E ) , whose vertices (nodes) represent processors and edges (links) represent communication links. Given a nonempty vertex subset V ′ of V, the induced subgraph by V ′ in G, denoted by G [ V ′ ] , is a graph, whose vertex set is V ′ and the edge set is the set of all the edges of G with both endpoints in V ′ . The degree d G ( v ) of a vertex v is the number of edges incident with v. The minimum degree of a vertex in G is denoted by δ ( G ) . For any vertex v, we define the neighborhood N G ( v ) 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 ∈ N G ( v ) . Let S ⊆ V . We use N G ( S ) to denote the set ∪ v ∈ S N G ( v ) \ 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 ( v ) = k . The connectivity κ ( G ) 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 Δ F 2 = ( F 1 \ F 2 ) ∪ ( F 2 \ F 1 ) . Let B 1 , ⋯ , B k ( k ≥ 2 ) be the components of G − F 1 . If | V ( B 1 ) | ≤ ⋯ ≤ | V ( B k ) | ( k ≥ 2 ) , then B k is called the maximum component of G − F 1 . For graph-theoretical terminology and notation not defined here we follow [

Let G = ( V , E ) . A fault set F ⊆ V is called a g-good-neighbor faulty set if | N ( v ) ∩ ( V \ F ) | ≥ g for every vertex v in V \ 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 κ ( g ) ( G ) . A fault set F ⊆ V is called a g-extra faulty set if every component of G − F has at least ( g + 1 ) 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 κ ˜ ( g ) ( G ) .

Proposition 2.1 [

Proposition 2.2 [

Under the PMC model [

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 = ( V , E ) is modeled as a multigraph, denoted by M ( V ( G ) , L ) , where L is the labeled-edge set. A labeled edge ( u , v ) w ∈ L represents a comparison in which two vertices u and v are compared by a vertex w, which implies u w , v w ∈ E ( G ) . The collection of all comparison results in M ( V ( G ) , L ) is called the syndrome, denoted by σ * , of the diagnosis. If the comparison ( u , v ) w disagrees, then σ * ( ( u , v ) w ) = 1 . otherwise, σ * ( ( u , v ) w ) = 0 . Hence, a syndrome is a function from L to { 0,1 } . 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 u w , v w ∈ E ( G ) , then ( u , v ) w ∈ L . Similar to the PMC model, we can define a subset of vertices F ⊆ V ( G ) is consistent with a given syndrome σ * and two distinct sets F 1 and F 2 in V ( G ) are indistinguishable (resp. distinguishable) under the MM* model.

A system G = ( V , E ) 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 | F 1 | ≤ t and | F 2 | ≤ t . The g-good-neighbor diagnosability t g ( G ) of G is the maximum value of t such that G is g-good-neighbor t-diagnosable.

Proposition 2.3 ( [

In a system G = ( V , E ) , a faulty set F ⊆ 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 , F 2 ⊆ V with | F 1 | ≤ t , | F 2 | ≤ t , are distinguishable. The conditional diagnosability t c ( G ) of G is the maximum number of t such that G is conditional t-diagnosable. By [

Theorem 2.4 [

In [

In a system G = ( V , E ) , a faulty set F ⊆ 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 , F 2 ⊆ V ( G ) such that | F i | ≤ t , F 1 and F 2 are distinguishable. The g-extra diagnosability of G, denoted by t ˜ g ( G ) , is the maximum value of t such that G is g-extra t-diagnosable.

Proposition 2.5 [

Theorem 2.6 [

Theorem 2.7 [

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

group graph. In the permutation ( 1 2 ⋯ n p 1 p 2 ⋯ p n ) , i → p i . For the convenience, we denote the permutation ( 1 2 ⋯ n p 1 p 2 ⋯ p n ) by p 1 p 2 ⋯ p n . Every

permutation can be denoted by a product of cycles [

( 1 2 3 3 1 2 ) = ( 132 ) . Specially, ( 1 2 ⋯ n 1 2 ⋯ n ) = ( 1 ) . The product st of two

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

Let [ n ] = { 1,2, ⋯ , n } , and let S n be the symmetric group on [ n ] containing all permutations p = p 1 p 2 ⋯ p n of [ n ] . The alternating group A n is the subgroup of S n containing all even permutations. It is well known that { ( 12 i ) , ( 1 i 2 ) ,3 ≤ i ≤ n } is a generating set for A n . The n-dimensional alternating group graph A G n is the graph with vertex set V ( A G n ) = A n in which two vertices u, v are adjacent if and only if u = v ( 12 i ) or u = v ( 1 i 2 ) , 3 ≤ i ≤ n . The identity element of A n is (1). The graphs A G 3 and A G 4 are depicted in

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 [

Theorem 2.8 ( [

Theorem 2.9 ( [

We can partition A G n into n subgraphs A G n 1 , A G n 2 , ⋯ , A G n n , where every vertex u = x 1 x 2 ⋯ x n ∈ V ( A G n ) has a fixed integer i in the last position x n for i ∈ [ n ] . It is obvious that A G n i is isomorphic to A G n − 1 for i ∈ [ n ] .

Proposition 2.10 [

Proposition 2.11 [

Proposition 2.12 ( [

1) A G n − F has two components, one of which is an isolated vertex or an

edge;

2) A G n − F has three components, two of which are isolated vertices.

Proposition 2.13 ( [

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 [

Lemma 2.15 ( [

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

Theorem 3.1 ( [

Lemma 3.2 Let A = { ( 1 ) , ( 132 ) , ( 142 ) } , n ≥ 4 and let F 1 = N A G n ( A ) , F 2 = A ∪ N A G n ( A ) . Then | F 1 | = 6 n − 19 , | F 2 | = 6 n − 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 [ A ] .

Proof. By A = { ( 1 ) , ( 132 ) , ( 142 ) } , we have that A G n [ A ] is a path ( 132 ) , ( 1 ) , ( 142 ) . Suppose n = 4 . Then | N ( A ) | = | { 2314 , 4132 , 1423 , 4321 , 3241 } | = 5 (see

that | N ( A ) ∩ V ( A G n 1 ) | = | { ( 12 n ) ) , ( 1 n ) ( 23 ) , ( 1 n ) ( 24 ) } | = 3 , | N ( A ) ∩ V ( A G n 2 ) | = | { ( 1 n 2 ) } | = 1 , | N ( A ) ∩ V ( A G n 3 ) | = | { ( 2 n 3 ) } | = 1 , | N ( A ) ∩ V ( A G n 4 ) | = | { ( 2 n 4 ) } | = 1 and | N ( A ) ∩ V ( A G n i ) | = 0 for i = 5 , ⋯ , n − 1 . Therefore, | F 1 | = 6 n − 25 + 6 = 6 n − 19 and | F 2 | = 6 n − 16 .

Let F i * = F 1 ∩ V ( A G n i ) for i ∈ { 1,2, ⋯ , n } . 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 ≥ 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 [ A ] . Since | N ( A ) ∩ V ( A G n 1 ) | = | { ( 12 n ) , ( 1 n ) ( 23 ) , ( 1 n ) ( 24 ) } | = 3 , | N ( A ) ∩ V ( A G n 2 ) | = | { ( 1 n 2 ) } | = 1 , | N ( A ) ∩ V ( A G n 3 ) | = | { ( 2 n 3 ) } | = 1 , | N ( A ) ∩ V ( A G n 4 ) | = | { ( 2 n 4 ) } | = 1 and | N ( A ) ∩ V ( A G n i ) | = 0 for i = 5 , ⋯ , n − 1 , by Propositions 2.10 and 2.11, A G n [ V ( A G n 2 − F 2 * ) ∪ V ( A G n 3 − F 3 * ) ∪ ⋯ ∪ V ( A G n n − F n * ) ] is connected for n ≥ 5 . By inductive hypothesis, A G n − 1 − F 2 is connected. Since F i * = F 1 ∩ V ( A G n i ) , by Proposition 2.14, ( N ( x ) ∩ V ( A G n i ) ) ∩ F i * = ∅ for x ∈ V ( A G n − 1 − F 2 ) . Therefore, A G n [ V ( A G n 1 − F 2 ) ∪ V ( A G n 2 − F 2 * ) ∪ V ( A G n 3 − F 3 * ) ∪ ⋯ ∪ V ( A G n n − F n * ) ] = A G n − F 2 is connected. Note that | V ( A G n − F 2 ) | ≥ 3 and | V ( A G n [ A ] ) | = 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 [ A ] . 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 ≥ 5 . Then A G n is tightly ( 6 n − 19 ) super 2-extra connected.

Proof. Let F 1 ⊆ A n . By Lemma 3.2, there is one | F 1 | = 6 n − 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 ≥ 5 ). Then | F | ≤ | F 1 | . Suppose that | F | ≤ 6 n − 20 . By Lemma 3.3, F is not a 2-extra cut of A G n . Therefore, | F | = 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 ≥ 4 . Then the 2-extra diagnosability of the n-dimensional alternating group graph A G n under the PMC model, t ˜ 2 ( A G n ) ≤ 6 n − 17 .

Proof. Let A = { ( 1 ) , ( 132 ) , ( 142 ) } , and let F 1 = N A G n ( A ) , F 2 = A ∪ N A G n ( A ) . By Lemma 3.2, | F 1 | = 6 n − 19 , | F 2 | = 6 n − 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 [ A ] . Therefore, F 1 and F 2 are both 2-extra faulty sets of A G n with | F 1 | = 6 n − 19 and | F 2 | = 6 n − 16 . Since A = F 1 Δ F 2 and N A G n ( A ) = F 1 ⊂ F 2 , there is no edge of A G n between V ( A G n ) \ ( F 1 ∪ F 2 ) and F 1 Δ F 2 . By Theorem 3.1, we can deduce that A G n is not 2-extra ( 6 n − 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 6 n − 16 , i.e., t ˜ 2 ( A G n ) ≤ 6 n − 17 . The proof is complete.

Lemma 3.5 Let n ≥ 5 . Then the 2-extra of the n-dimensional alternating group graph A G n under the PMC model, t ˜ 2 ( A G n ) ≥ 6 n − 17 .

Proof. By the definition of 2-extra diagnosability, it is sufficient to show that A G n is 2-extra ( 6 n − 17 ) -diagnosable. By Theorem 3.1, to prove A G n is 2-extra ( 6 n − 17 ) -diagnosable, it is equivalent to prove that there is an edge u v ∈ E ( A G n ) with u ∈ V ( A G n ) \ ( F 1 ∪ F 2 ) and v ∈ F 1 Δ F 2 for each distinct pair of 2-extra faulty subsets F 1 and F 2 of V ( A G n ) with | F 1 | ≤ 6 n − 17 and | F 2 | ≤ 6 n − 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 | F 1 | ≤ 6 n − 17 and | F 2 | ≤ 6 n − 17 , but the vertex set pair ( F 1 , F 2 ) is not satisfied with the condition in Theorem 3.1, i.e., there are no edges between V ( A G n ) \ ( F 1 ∪ F 2 ) and F 1 Δ F 2 . Without loss of generality, assume that F 2 \ F 1 ≠ ∅ . Assume V ( A G n ) = F 1 ∪ F 2 . By the definition of A n , | F 1 ∪ F 2 | = | A n | = n ! / 2 . We claim that n ! / 2 > 12 n − 34 for n ≥ 5 , i.e., n ! > 24 n − 68 for n ≥ 5 . When n = 5 , n ! = 120 , 24 n − 68 = 52 . So n ! > 24 n − 68 for n = 5 . Assume that n ! > 24 n − 68 for n ≥ 5 . ( n + 1 ) ! = n ! ( n + 1 ) > ( n + 1 ) ( 24 n − 68 ) = n ( 24 n − 68 ) + ( 24 n − 44 ) − 24 = [ 24 ( n + 1 ) − 68 ] + n ( 24 n − 68 ) − 24 = [ 24 ( n + 1 ) − 68 ] + 4 ( 6 n 2 − 17 n − 6 ) . It is sufficient to show that 6 n 2 − 17 n − 6 ≥ 0 for n ≥ 5 . Let y = 6 x 2 − 17 x − 6 . Then y = 6 x 2 − 17 x − 6 is a quadratic function. When x ≥ 5 , y = 6 x 2 − 17 x − 6 ≥ 0 .

Since n ≥ 5 , we have that n ! / 2 = | V ( A G n ) | = | F 1 ∪ F 2 | = | F 1 | + | F 2 | − | F 1 ∩ F 2 | ≤ | F 1 | + | F 2 | ≤ 2 ( 6 n − 17 ) = 12 n − 34 , a contradiction to n ! / 2 > 12 n − 34 . Therefore, let V ( A G n ) ≠ F 1 ∪ F 2 as follows.

Since there are no edges between V ( A G n ) \ ( F 1 ∪ F 2 ) and F 1 Δ 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 [ F 2 \ F 1 ] (for convenience). Thus, every component G i of A G n − F 1 − F 2 has | V ( G i ) | ≥ 3 and every component B ′ i of A G n [ F 2 \ F 1 ] has | V ( B ′ i ) | ≥ 3 . Similarly, every component B ″ i of A G n [ F 1 \ F 2 ] has | V ( B ″ ) | ≥ 3 when F 1 \ F 2 ≠ ∅ . Therefore, F 1 ∩ F 2 is also a 2-extra faulty set of A G n . Note that F 1 ∩ F 2 = F 1 is also a 2-extra faulty set when F 1 \ F 2 = ∅ . Since there are no edges between V ( A G n − F 1 − F 2 ) and F 1 Δ F 2 , F 1 ∩ F 2 is a 2-extra cut of A G n . If F 1 ∩ F 2 = ∅ , this is a contradiction to that A G n is connected. Therefore, F 1 ∩ F 2 ≠ ∅ . Since n ≥ 5 , by Theorem 2.9, | F 1 ∩ F 2 | ≥ 6 n − 19 . Therefore, | F 2 | = | F 2 \ F 1 | + | F 1 ∩ F 2 | ≥ 3 + 6 n − 19 = 6 n − 16 , which contradicts with that | F 2 | ≤ 6 n − 17 . So A G n is 2-extra ( 6 n − 17 ) -diagnosable. By the definition of t ˜ 2 ( A G n ) , t ˜ 2 ( A G n ) ≥ 6 n − 17 . The proof is complete.

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

Theorem 3.6 Let n ≥ 5 . Then the 2-extra diagnosability of the n-dimensional alternating group graph A G n under the PMC model is 6 n − 17 .

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) There are two vertices u , w ∈ V \ ( F 1 ∪ F 2 ) and there is a vertex v ∈ F 1 Δ F 2 such that u w ∈ E and v w ∈ E .

2) There are two vertices u , v ∈ F 1 \ F 2 and there is a vertex w ∈ V \ ( F 1 ∪ F 2 ) such that u w ∈ E and v w ∈ E .

3) There are two vertices u , v ∈ F 2 \ F 1 and there is a vertex w ∈ V \ ( F 1 ∪ F 2 ) such that u w ∈ E and v w ∈ E .

Lemma 4.2 Let n ≥ 5 . Then the 2-extra diagnosability of the n-dimensional alternating group graph A G n under the MM* model, t ˜ 2 ( A G n ) ≤ 6 n − 17 .

Proof. Let A = { ( 1 ) , ( 132 ) , ( 142 ) } , and let F 1 = N A G n ( A ) , F 2 = A ∪ N A G n ( A ) . By Lemma 3.2, | F 1 | = 6 n − 19 , | F 2 | = 6 n − 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 [ A ] . Therefore, F 1 and F 2 are both 2-extra faulty sets of A G n with | F 1 | = 6 n − 19 and | F 2 | = 6 n − 16 . By the definitions of F 1 and F 2 , F 1 Δ F 2 = A . Note F 1 \ F 2 = ∅ , F 2 \ F 1 = A and ( V ( A G n ) \ ( F 1 ∪ F 2 ) ) ∩ A = ∅ . 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 ( 6 n − 16 ) diagnosable. Hence, t ˜ 2 ( A G n ) ≤ 6 n − 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 ( G ) the number of add component of G.

Lemma 4.3 ( [

Lemma 4.4 Let n ≥ 4 . Then A G n has a perfect matching.

Proof. Note that a perfect matching of A G 4 is { [ 1342,4132 ] , [ 2431,1234 ] , [ 3241,4321 ] , [ 1423,3124 ] , [ 3412,2314 ] , [ 2143,4213 ] } (see

Lemma 4.5 Let n ≥ 5 . Then the 2-extra diagnosability of the n-dimensional alternating group graph A G n under the MM* model, t ˜ 2 ( A G n ) ≥ 6 n − 17 .

Proof. By the definition of 2-extra diagnosability, it is sufficient to show that A G n is 2-extra ( 6 n − 17 ) -diagnosable.

Suppose, on the contrary, that there are two distinct 2-extra faulty subsets F 1 and F 2 of A G n with | F 1 | ≤ 6 n − 17 and | F 2 | ≤ 6 n − 17 , but the vertex set pair ( F 1 , F 2 ) is not satisfied with any one condition in Theorem 4.1. Without loss of generality, assume that F 2 \ F 1 ≠ ∅ . Assume V ( A G n ) = F 1 ∪ F 2 . By the definition of A n , | F 1 ∪ F 2 | = | A n | = n ! / 2 . Similar to the discussion on V ( A G n ) ≠ F 1 ∪ F 2 in Lemma 3.5, we can deduce V ( A G n ) = F 1 ∪ F 2 . Therefore, V ( A G n ) ≠ F 1 ∪ 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 ∈ F 2 \ F 1 such that u is adjacent to w 1 . Meanwhile, since the vertex set pair ( F 1 , F 2 ) 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 ∈ F 2 \ F 1 such that u is adjacent to w 1 . Thus, there is just a vertex u ∈ F 2 \ F 1 such that u is adjacent to w 1 . If F 1 \ F 2 = ∅ , then F 1 ⊆ 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 | V ( G i ) | ≥ 3 . Therefore, A G n − F 1 − F 2 has no isolated vertex. Thus, let F 1 \ F 2 ≠ ∅ . Similarly, we can deduce that there is just a vertex a ∈ F 1 \ F 2 such that a is adjacent to w 1 . Let W ⊆ A n \ ( F 1 ∪ F 2 ) be the set of isolated vertices in A G n [ A n \ ( F 1 ∪ F 2 ) ] , and let H be the induced subgraph by the vertex set A n \ ( F 1 ∪ F 2 ∪ W ) . Then for any w ∈ W , there are ( 2 n − 6 ) neighbors in F 1 ∩ F 2 .

By Lemmas 4.3 and 4.4, | W | ≤ o ( A G n − ( F 1 ∪ F 2 ) ) ≤ | F 1 ∪ F 2 | = | F 1 | + | F 2 | − | F 1 ∩ F 2 | ≤ 2 ( 6 n − 17 ) − ( 2 n − 6 ) = 10 n − 28 . Since n ≥ 5 , n ! / 4 > 10 n − 28 . Therefore, | W | ≤ n ! / 4 . Suppose V ( H ) = ∅ . Then n ! / 2 = | V ( A G n ) | = | F 1 ∪ F 2 | + | W | = | F 1 | + | F 2 | − | F 1 ∩ F 2 | + | W | ≤ 2 ( 6 n − 17 ) − ( 2 n − 6 ) + | W | = 10 n − 28 + | W | < n ! / 4 + 10 n − 28 and hence n ! / 4 < 10 n − 28 , a contradiction to that n ≥ 5 . So V ( H ) ≠ ∅ .

Since the vertex set pair ( F 1 , F 2 ) is not satisfied with the condition (1) of Theorem 4.1, and any vertex of V ( H ) is not isolated in H, we induce that there is no edge between V ( H ) and F 1 Δ 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 | V ( H i ) | ≥ 3 and every component B i of A G n [ W ∪ ( F 2 \ F 1 ) ] has | V ( B i ) | ≥ 3 . Therefore, F 1 is also a 2-extra cut of A G n . If F 1 ∩ F 2 = ∅ , then this is a contradiction to that A G n is connected. Therefore, F 1 ∩ F 2 ≠ ∅ . By Theorem 2.9, | F 1 | ≥ 6 n − 19 . Since | F 1 | ≤ 6 n − 17 , we have 6 n − 19 ≤ | F 1 | ≤ 6 n − 17 . Since every component B i of A G n [ W ∪ ( F 2 \ F 1 ) ] has | V ( B i ) | ≥ 3 , we have | F 2 \ F 1 | ≥ 2 and hence | F 1 | = 6 n − 17 and | F 2 \ F 1 | = 2 . Since F 2 is a 2-extra faulty set of A G n , we have that W = ∅ when F 1 \ F 2 = ∅ . Therefore, let F 1 \ F 2 = ∅ . Similarly, we can deduce that F 2 is also a 2-extra cut of A G n , | F 2 | = 6 n − 17 and | F 1 \ F 2 | = 2 . Let F 2 \ F 1 = { u , v } , F 1 \ F 2 = { a , b } , and let v u w 1 a b be a path in A G n (see

Since there is no edge between V ( H ) and F 1 Δ F 2 , V ( H ) ≠ ∅ and F 2 \ F 1 ≠ ∅ , F 1 ∩ F 2 is a cut of A G n . By the above result, | F 1 ∩ F 2 | = 6 n − 19 . Since every component H i of H has | V ( H i ) | ≥ 3 , every component B i of A G n [ W ∪ ( F 2 \ F 1 ) ] has | V ( B i ) | ≥ 3 and every component B ′ i of A G n [ W ∪ ( F 2 \ F 1 ) ] has | V ( B ′ i ) | ≥ 3 , we have that every component H i of H has | V ( H i ) | ≥ 3 and every component G i of A G n [ W ∪ ( F 2 \ F 1 ) ∪ ( F 1 \ F 2 ) ] has | V ( G i ) | ≥ 3 . By Theorem 2.9, κ ˜ ( 2 ) ( A G n ) = 6 n − 19 and F 1 ∩ F 2 is a minimum 2-extra cut of A G n . Therefore, | F 1 ∩ F 2 | = 6 n − 19 . By Corollary 3.3, A G n is tightly ( 6 n − 19 ) super 2-extra connected, i.e., A G n − ( F 1 ∩ F 2 ) has two components, one of which is the path of length 3. Since | F 2 \ F 1 | + | F 1 \ F 2 | + | W | ≥ 5 , we have that | V ( A G n − F 1 − F 2 − W ) | = 3 . Thus,

n ! / 2 = | V ( A G n ) | = | V ( A G n − F 1 − F 2 − W ) | + | F 2 \ F 1 | + | F 1 \ F 2 | + | W | + | F 2 ∩ F 1 | < 3 + 2 + 2 + n ! / 4 + 6 n − 19 = 6 n − 12 + n ! / 4 and hence n ! / 4 < 6 n − 12 , a contradiction to n ≥ 5 . The proof Claim 1 is complete.

Let u ∈ V ( A G n ) \ ( F 1 ∪ F 2 ) . By Claim 1, u has at least one neighbor in A G n − F 1 − F 2 . Since the vertex set pair ( F 1 , F 2 ) 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 , w ∈ V ( A G n ) \ ( F 1 ∪ F 2 ) , there is no vertex v ∈ F 1 Δ F 2 such that u w ∈ E ( A G n ) and v w ∈ E ( A G n ) . It follows that u has no neighbor in F 1 Δ F 2 . By the arbitrariness of u, there is no edge between V ( A G n ) \ ( F 1 ∪ F 2 ) and F 1 Δ F 2 . Since F 2 \ F 1 ≠ ∅ and F 1 is a 2-extra faulty set, every component H i of A G n − F 1 − F 2 has | V ( H i ) | ≥ 3 and every component G i of A G n ( [ F 2 \ F 1 ] ) has | V ( G i ) | ≥ 3 . Suppose that F 1 \ F 2 = ∅ . Then F 1 ∩ F 2 = F 1 . Since F 1 is a 2-extra faulty set of A G n , we have that F 1 ∩ F 2 = F 1 is a 2-extra faulty set of A G n . Since | V ( A G n − F 1 − F 2 ) | = | V ( A G n − F 2 ) | ≥ 3 and | F 2 \ F 1 | ≥ 3 , F 1 ∩ F 2 = F 1 is a 2-extra cut of A G n . Suppose that F 1 \ F 2 ≠ ∅ . If F 1 ∩ F 2 = ∅ , then this is a contradiction to that A G n is connected. Therefore,

F 1 ∩ F 2 ≠ ∅ . Similarly, every component B i of A G n ( [ F 1 \ F 2 ] ) has | V ( B i ) | ≥ 3 . Therefore, F 1 ∩ F 2 is a 2-extra cut of A G n . By Theorem 2.9, we have | F 1 ∩ F 2 | ≥ 6 n − 19 . Therefore, | F 2 | = | F 2 \ F 1 | + | F 1 ∩ F 2 | ≥ 3 + ( 6 n − 19 ) = 6 n − 16 , which contradicts | F 2 | ≤ 6 n − 17 . Therefore, A G n is 2-extra ( 6 n − 17 ) diagnosable and t ˜ 2 ( A G n ) ≥ 6 n − 17 . The proof is complete.

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

Theorem 4.6 Let n ≥ 5 . Then the 2-extra diagnosability of the the n-dimensional alternating group graph A G n the MM* model is 6 n − 17 .

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 6 n − 17 , where n ≥ 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.

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

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