Arxiv:2107.14767V2 [Math.CO] 8 Aug 2021 Distinguishing Threshold Of

arXiv:2107.14767v3 [math.CO] 21 Sep 2021 oamdH Shekarriz H. Mohammad ∗ § ‡ † [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] by of ae,w study we paper, w uiir ol yfidn h eainbtentedisti the between relation the finding by tools auxiliary two ubro oosrqie o uhclrn,adtedisting the and coloring, such for required colors of number K Keywords: h yl tutr fteatmrhs ru of group automorphism the of structure cycle the hi uoopimgop n itnusignmes ec we numbers, as distinguishing thresholds and groups automorphism their and ahmtc ujc Classification Subject Mathematics { oinof motion l h rpsi h ono scheme, Johnson the in graphs the all uoopim sn hs ol,w rv that prove we tools, these Using automorphism. orgah n3vrie ri so order of is it or vertices 3 on graphs four rv that prove 1 1 2 eateto ahmtc,Yz nvriy 89195-741,Ya University, Yazd Mathematics, of Department n , . . . , G θ etxclrn fagraph a of coloring vertex A or ( / i G a rsrei.Tedsigihn ubrof number distinguishing The it. preserve can { ∈ 2 K ) eateto ahmtc,Sia nvriy hrz Ira Shiraz, University, Shiraz Mathematics, of Department stemnmmnumber minimum the is , 2 } k oevr eso htif that show we Moreover, . 2 G k , hr w vertices two where θ hc stemnmmnme fvrie htaentfie ya by fixed not are that vertices of number minimum the is which , ( } itnusigclrn,dsigihn hehl,John threshold, distinguishing coloring, distinguishing G θ and , itnusigtrsodo graphs of threshold Distinguishing ( = ) J θ ( ( ,k i k, n, G D θ ) ( ( n,fis,caatrz twhen it characterize first, and, J G ( )= )) ) ,k i k, n, n .H hrae Haghighi Shirdareh H. M. and fadol if only and if ∗1 amnAhmadi Bahman , n k )= )) A G − k and scle itnusigi onniett automorphisms non-identity no if distinguishing called is uhta every that such n k n k − − B 1 2 θ when J ( G Abstract G 1 + ( 50,0C5 52,05C30 05C25, 05C15, 05C09, : r daetif adjacent are ,k i k, n, 3 = ) 2 sasymmetric, is p 1 where , when k = ) hneither then , hc r h rpso all on graphs the are which , θ n 2 ( G k G 2 and clrn of -coloring †2 G n loterlto of relation the also and 2 = ) ≤ p G eoe by denoted , .A aepu hrz Fard Shirazi Talebpour A. S. , 3 6= n/ < k sdsonce.Te,w provide we Then, disconnected. is i | A { ∈ K fadol if only and if , ihn hehl of threshold uishing ∩ 5 n gihn threshold nguishing G k 2 sapienme.W also We number. prime a is B luaeterdistinguishing their alculate 2 or k , sioopi ooeo the of one to isomorphic is §2 G | and } K = sdsigihn.I this In distinguishing. is . n D o scheme son k ial,w consider we Finally, . i ( 1 = − G G ) i steminimum the is , fe studying After . k , . . . , sioopi to isomorphic is θ ( non-identity k G d Iran. zd, G sbesof -subsets or , ) θ denoted , ihthe with ( n G k ) = and n 2 ‡2 , 1 Introduction

An automorphism of a graph is a symmetry of the graph in an abstract form, and is said to be broken by a vertex coloring if it maps some vertex to a vertex with different color. A vertex coloring of a graph G is called distinguishing (or symmetry breaking) if it breaks all non-trivial automorphisms of G. The distinguishing number, shown by D(G), is the smallest number of colors required for such a coloring. For a positive integer d, if there is a distinguishing coloring of G with d colors, we say that G is d-distinguishable. One can easily verify that D(Kn) = n, D(Kn,n) = n +1, D(Pn)=2 for n ≥ 2, D(C3) = D(C4) = D(C5)=3, while D(Cn)=2, for n ≥ 6 [3]. The concept has its roots back in 1970s, when Babai defined the asymmetric coloring in [6], but it was only after publication of [3] by Albertson and Collins in 1996, that the present terminology came to be widely used. Afterwards, the subject spawned a whole lot of wealth in results and newly defined graph theoretical indices. For many classes of graphs methods to efficiently break their symmetries were already devised and, where it was feasible, general bounds on their distinguishing number were also derived. For a connected finite graph G, it was shown by Collins and Trenk [8], and independently by Klavžar, Wong and Zhu [24], that D(G) ≤ ∆+1, where ∆ is the largest vertex degree of G. Furthermore, D(G)=∆+1 if and only if G is isomorphic to K∆+1, K∆,∆, or C5. Although the are many results about finite graphs, but the literature has also been en- riched with numerous results on infinite graphs, see e.g. [17, 28, 16]. It can be generalized to some other discrete structures and/or using other means of symmetry breaking. For instance, we can mention Imrich et al. [15] who considered breaking graphs’ endomorphisms by coloring, Ellingham and Schroeder [11] who considered symmetry breaking via partitioning and Laflamme, Nguyen Van Thé and Sauer [25] who considered the distinguishing number of some homogeneous structures such as directed graphs and posets. There are also several generalizations of the distinguishing coloring. Collins and Trenk [8] mixed the concept with the proper coloring and introduced the distinguishing chromatic number χD(G) of a graph G. Moreover, Kalinowski and Pilśniak [21] introduced the distinguishing index

D′(G) and the distinguishing chromatic index χD′ (G), while they, along with Woźniak, in [22] did a similar task for the total coloring and deﬁned the analogous notions D′′(G) and χD′′ (G). The literature is also rich in results for product graphs. For example, Bogstad and Cowen [7] showed that for k ≥ 4, every hypercube Qk of dimension k, which is the Cartesian product of k copies of K2, is 2-distinguishable, while Imrich and Klavžar in [18] showed that the distinguish- 2 2 3 ing number of Cartesian powers of a connected graph G is equal to 2 except for K2 ,K3 ,K2 . Furthermore, Imrich, Jerebic and Klavžar [14] showed that Cartesian products of relatively prime graphs whose sizes are close to each other can be distinguished with a small number of colors. The lexicographic product was also a subject of symmetry breaking via vertex and edge coloring. Alikhani and Soltani in [4] showed that, under some conditions on the automorphism group of a graph G, we have D(G) ≤ D(Gk) ≤ D(G)+ k − 1, where Gk is the kth lexicographic

2 power of G. Meanwhile, they also showed that if G and H are connected graphs, then D(H) ≤ D(G ◦ H) ≤|V (G)|· D(H). Ahmadi, Alinaghipour and Shekarriz [1] defined some indices such as ϕk(G) (respectively, Φk(G)), which stands for the number of non-equivalent distinguishing colorings of the graph G with exactly k (respectively, at most k) colors, and used them to refine findings on distinguishing lexicographic product. They proved that D(X ◦ Y ) = k where k is the least integer that Φk(Y ) ≥ D(X), when the automorphisms of X ◦ Y are all natural, i. e., keep the product’s skeleton [13]. It seems rather easy to calculate Φk(G) and ϕk(G) when G is a path or a cycle. However, the calculations are not easy in the general case. and known algorithms have exponential running times. Consequently, it might take a very long time for a computer algebra system to count the number of non-equivalent distinguishing colorings of a graph G with non-trivial symmetries on n vertices, even when n is as small as 10. However, when k is large enough, even for the case of large graphs, the calculations are much easier. This motivated Ahmadi, Alinaghipour and Shekarriz [1] to define the distinguishing threshold θ(G) as the minimum number k of colors such that any coloring of the graph G with k colors is distinguishing. Clearly we have D(G) ≤ θ(G) ≤ |V (G)|. They also showed that θ(Kn) = θ(Kn) = n, θ(Km,n) = m + n, n n θ(Pn)= ⌈ 2 ⌉ +1, for n ≥ 2, and θ(Cn)= ⌊ 2 ⌋ +2, for n ≥ 3. The main objective of this paper is to continue their study of this parameter. We start our study by thoroughly looking at the distinguishing threshold in Section 2, where we first consider θ(G) when G is a disconnected graph. Then we demonstrate the relationship between this parameter with the cycle structure of the automorphisms of the graph G and the motion of G. Then we study graphs with small thresholds by showing that, while all asymmetric graphs have the distinguishing threshold equal to 1, the only graphs with θ(G)=2 are K2 and K2. Moreover, a graph G with θ(G)=3 is either one of the four graphs on 3 vertices or a bi-regular graph on 2p vertices where p =6 3, 5 is a prime number. In addition, we prove that θ(G) = D(G) if and only if G is asymmetric, Kn or Kn. Furthermore, it is shown that the distinguishing threshold of an infinite graph is either 1 or infinity. The relation between the distinguishing threshold and the cycle structure of the automorphism group motivates us to consider the graphs whose automorphism groups have been studied thoroughly. A rich family of such examples are the graphs in association schemes, particularly, the Johnson scheme. For detailed studies on this subject, we refer the reader to the texts such as [10] by Eiichi and Tatsuro. The interesting fact about the graphs in the Johnson scheme, i.e. the generalized Johnson graphs, is that any permutation on {1,...,n} induces an automorphism of all the generalized Johnson graphs on the same set of vertices; that is, Sym(n) is isomorphic to a subgroup of their automorphism groups. Jones [20] obtained the automorphism group of any merged Johnson graph from which the automorphism group of any generalized Johnson graph can be obtained. Furthermore, Jones’ result enabled Kim, Kwon and Lee [23] to obtain the distinguishing number of any merged Johnson graph which, in turn, leads to the distinguishing number of any generalized Johnson graph. An important sub-family of generalized Johnson graphs, is the family of Kneser graphs K(n, k), to which the Petersen graph belongs. In [1], the authors have also addressed the

3 problem of determining the distinguishing threshold of the Kneser graphs, in some special case. 1 2 More speciﬁcally, for n ≥ 5, they have proved that θ(K(n, 2)) = 2 (n −3n+6). In Section 3, we continue this study and, along with listing the distinguishing number of all generalized Johnson graphs, we compute their distinguishing threshold. All graphs in this paper are assumed to be simple (undirected and loopless) and ﬁnite, unless otherwise stated. We use the standard notation in graph theory which can be found in [9] by Diestel.

2 Distinguishing threshold

Two colorings c1 and c2 of a graph G are called equivalent if there is an automorphism α of G such that c1(v) = c2(α(v)), for all v ∈ V (G). The number of non-equivalent distinguishing colorings of a graph G with {1, ··· ,k} as the set of admissible colors is shown by Φk(G), while the number of non-equivalent k-distinguishing colorings of a graph G with {1, ··· ,k} as the set of colors is shown by ϕk(G) [1]. These two indices are related as

k k Φ (G)= ϕ (G). k i i i=XD(G) n 1 n 2 By simple counting arguments, one observes that Φk(Pn) = 2 (k − k⌈ ⌉) when n, k ≥ 1, and k Φk(Kn)= n when n ≥ 2 and k ≥ n [1]. Calculating ϕ (G) in general cases, contains counting the number of k-distinguishing col- k orings of G, while when k is large enough so that every k-coloring of G is distinguishing, i. e. when k ≥ θ(G), we have

n k! k ϕk(G)= , |Aut( G )| n where k stands for the Stirling number of the second kind [1]. In what follows, we consider the distinguishing threshold for general graphs and prove some results which can provide useful machinery for this paper as well as future studies. Our default assumption is that all graphs here are connected; one exception is the following theorem in which we consider the distinguishing threshold for disconnected graphs. In order to state the theorem, we will make use of the following notation. Suppose that

G is a graph with connected components G1,...,Gk, where all the Gi are asymmetric. Then we consider the isomorphism congruence classes C1,..., Cm of the graphs G1,...,Gk, where we assume that the Cj’s are increasingly ordered in the sense that if j <ℓ, and Gij ∈ Cj and

4 k Theorem 2.1. Let G1,G2,...,Gk be arbitrary connected graphs and let G = ∪i=1Gi.

(a) If Aut(Gi) =6 {id}, for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n, then

θ(G) = max θ(Gi)+ |V (Gj)| . 1 i k ≤ ≤ ( j=i ) X6

(b) If Aut(Gi)= {id}, for all 1 ≤ i ≤ k, then θ(G)= |V (G)| − ν(G)+1.

{id}, for i ∈ B, then set GA = i A Gi and GB = i B Gi. In this case, we have ∈ ∈

θ(G) = maxS{θ(GA)+ |V (GB)|,S θ(GB)+ |V (GA)|},

unless GB is asymmetric and θ(GA)+ |V (GB)| ≤ θ(GB)+ |V (GA)|, in which case we have θ(G)= θ(GA)+ |V (GB)|. Proof. To prove (a), without loss of generality, we assume

q = max θ(Gi)+ |V (Gj)| = θ(G1)+ |V (Gj)|. 1 i k ≤ ≤ ( j=i ) j=2 X6 X It is obvious that θ(G) ≥ q. Thus, it is enough to show that any arbitrary coloring of G with q colors is distinguishing. Suppose on contrary that c is a non-distinguishing coloring of G with q colors. Then, we may assume that the number of colors which are used in G1 is θ(G1)+ r, where 0

|V (Gi1 )| + |V (Gi2 )| + ··· + |V (Gim )| − (t1 + ··· + tm) < θ(Gi1 )+ |V (Gi2 )| + ··· + |V (Gim )|; thus, since r = t1 + ··· + tm and r ≤|V (G1)| − θ(G1), we have

|V (Gi1 )| + |V (Gi2 )| + ··· + |V (Gim )| + θ(G1) < θ(Gi1 )+ |V (Gi2 )| + ··· + |V (Gim )| + |V (G1)|, which contradicts the deﬁnition of q. To show part (b), we note that if the Gi’s are mutually non-isomorphic, then by the deﬁ- nition, we have ν(G)= |V (G)| and the result follows because G is asymmetric. Otherwise, let

ν(G)= |V (Gis )|. Clearly, any coloring with |V (G)|−|V (Gis )| +1 colors breaks the symmetry of G; however, if we assign a distinct color to any vertex of G \ Gis and color the vertices of

Gis in exactly the same way as another graph in the class Cs, then we will obtain a coloring of

G with |V (G)|−|V (Gis )| colors which is not distinguishing. This completes the proof. Finally, to prove (c), we ﬁrst assume that

q = max{θ(GA)+ |V (GB)|, θ(GB)+ |V (GA)|} = θ(GA)+ |V (GB)|.

5 It is easy to see that θ(G) ≥ q. On the other hand, suppose that there exists a non-distinguishing coloring c with q colors. Similar to the proof of (a), assume that GA and GB receive θ(GA)+r and |V (GB)| − r colors, respectively, where 0

|V (GB)|−|V (GA)| + θ(GA) < θ(GB). Hence, |V (GB)| + θ(GA) < θ(GB)+ |V (GA)|, which is a contradiction and shows that θ(G) ≤ q. Now, assume q = θ(GB)+ |V (GA)|. If θ(GB)=1, then it is obvious that θ(G)= θ(GA)+ |V (GB)| and the case where θ(GB) > 1 follows using a similar argument as in part (a). Since the action of the automorphism group of a graph on the vertex set is faithful, one can represent an automorphism of a graph by a product of cyclic permutations where this representation is unique up to a permutation of cycles. For an automorphism α and a vertex 2 r 1 v ∈ V (G), the ordered tuple σ =(v,α(v),α (v),...,α − (v)) forms a cycle of length r provided that r is the least integer such that αr(v)= v. Note that a length-one cycle (v) fixes the vertex v and that the order of a cycle σ in the automorphism group is the length of σ. We define the 2 r 1 support of the cycle σ to be the subset Supp(σ)= {v,α(v),α (v),...,α − (v)} of the vertices. The number of cycles of an automorphism α is denoted here by |α|. As an example, consider the graph depicted at Figure 1. Then 12345 α = 32154! is an automorphism which can be represented as α = (1, 3)(2)(4, 5), and therefore |α| =3. Note that Supp((1, 3)) = {1, 3} and Supp((2)) = {2}. It is often convenient to display only the cycles of length > 1 implying that the vertices missing in the cycles are fixed by the automorphism; e.g. in this example we may write α = (1 3)(4 5); but |α| counts all, including length-one, cycles.

3 5

2 1 4

Figure 1: a graph whose automorphism α has 3 cycles.

Using the cycle structures of the elements of the automorphism group of a graph, one can obtain the exact value of the distinguishing threshold. The following lemma seems to be one of the most essential statements that one can say about the distinguishing threshold of an arbitrary graph.

6 Lemma 2.2. For any graph G, we have

θ(G) = max {|α| : α ∈ Aut(G) \{id}} +1.

Proof. Let q = max {|α| : α ∈ Aut(G) \{id}} and σ ∈ Aut(G) such that σ =6 id and |σ| = q. Consider a non-distinguishing q-coloring of G which uses a single color ci to color the vertices in the support of the i-th cycle of σ, i =1,...,q. This shows that θ(G) ≥ q +1. Conversely, let α be a non-identity automorphism of G. Then since |α| ≤ q, by the pigeon- hole principle, any (q + 1)-coloring of G uses diﬀerent colors on the vertices in the support of at least one of the cycles of α, which means that α cannot preserve this coloring. This proves that θ(G) ≤ q +1.

In the following lemma, we make use of the notion of motion, which is introduced by Russell and Sundaram in [27]. The motion m(α) of an automorphism α ∈ Aut(G) is the number of vertices of G that are not ﬁxed by α, and the motion of G is deﬁned as

m(G) = min {m(α): α ∈ Aut(G) \{id}} .

Lemma 2.3. Let G be a graph on n vertices. Then, we have

θ(G) ≥ n − m(G)+2.

Proof. Let β ∈ Aut(G) with m(β) = m(G) and consider a coloring with n − m(G)+1 colors which assigns n − m(G) colors to the ﬁxed vertices of β and another color to all the vertices moved by β. This coloring is not distinguishing and, therefore, the statement follows.

Since for an asymmetric graph G, we have θ(G)=1 [1], there are infinitely many graphs whose distinguishing threshold is 1. Therefore, it is a natural question to ask whether, for an integer k ≥ 2, there are finitely or infinitely many graphs whose distinguishing threshold is k. We first consider the case k =2 in the following theorem which states that there are only two such graphs. To prove the result, we recall the notion of circulant graphs. For any group (Γ, ·) and any non-empty subset S ⊆ Γ which is closed under inversion and 1Γ ∈/ S, the Cayley graph Cay(Γ,S) on Γ with the connection set S is defined to be the graph 1 whose vertices are the elements of Γ, and in which two vertices g, h are adjacent if g · h− ∈ S. The Cayley graphs are clearly vertex-transitive. In the special case where Γ=(Zn, +) and S Z Z Z is a symmetric subset of n∗ = n \{0}, G = Cay( n,S) is called a circulant graph, see [26] by Morris or [12] by Godsil and Royle. An alternative way of describing a circulant graph G is that there is an automorphism α ∈ Aut(G) such that |α| =1; that is, G is a circulant graph if and only if it has an automorphism which contains all the vertices of G in one cycle.

Theorem 2.4. The only graphs with the distinguishing threshold 2 are K2 and K2.

Proof. The only graphs on 2 vertices are K2 and its complement K2. Suppose G is a graph on more than 2 vertices for which we have θ(G)=2. Then, G must have some non-trivial

7 symmetries. According to Lemma 2.2, any automorphism α =6 id must have at most one cycle of length n = |V (G)|, which implies that G is circulant and, thus, vertex-transitive. Moreover, n must be a prime number greater than 2 (because, otherwise, there would be a non-trivial automorphism with more than one cycles in Aut(G)). If G has no edges, i.e. if G is the empty graph on n> 2 vertices, we have θ(G)= n> 2, a contradiction. Thus we assume that G has some edges. Let e = u0u1 be an edge and β ∈ Aut(G) be so that β(u0) = u1. There is such a β because G is vertex-transitive. Consequently, by a re-labeling we may write β =(u0u1 ...u n u n ...u 1) where ⌊ 2 ⌋ −⌊ 2 ⌋ −

n n 2 2 +1 n 1 u0 ∼ β(u0)= u1 ∼ ... ∼ β⌊ ⌋(u0)= u n ∼ β⌊ ⌋ (u0)= u n ∼ ... ∼ β − (u0)= u 1 ∼ u0, ⌊ 2 ⌋ −⌊ 2 ⌋ −

n n which means that (u0u1 ...u 2 u 2 ...u 1) forms a Hamiltonian cycle in G. Since G is vertex- ⌊ ⌋ −⌊ ⌋ − n transitive, if u0 ∼ uk, for some k =1,..., ⌊ ⌋, then u k ∼ u0. We conclude that the map 2 − γ :V (G) −→ V (G)

γ(ui)= u i, − n n n for i = −⌊ 2 ⌋,..., −1, 0, 1,..., ⌊ 2 ⌋, is an automorphism of G, which has ⌊ 2 ⌋ +1 > 1 cycles. This contradiction completes the proof.

The following observation is one of the features coming out from the proof of Theorem 2.4.

Remark 2.5. The existence of the automorphism γ in proof of Theorem 2.4 means that the dihedral group D2p is a subgroup of the automorphism group of a circulant graph of prime order p. This simple fact must have been appeared in the literature long ago, but we could not ﬁnd an appropriate reference.

Characterizing the graphs, whose distinguishing threshold is 3, seems to be more compli- cated. There are inﬁnitely many such graphs, but except for some small ones, all such graphs are of a special order. In Theorem 2.6 we consider such graphs. Recall that a graph G is called bi-regular if there are two (not necessarily distinct) positive integers d1 and d2 such that the degree of any vertex v ∈ G is either d1 or d2. We denote the set of all vertices with vertex degrees d1 and d2 by A1 and A2, respectively. We are now ready to discuss about graphs whose distinguishing threshold is 3.

Theorem 2.6. Let G be a graph on n vertices for which we have θ(G)=3. Then, either

(a) n =3, or

(b) n = 2p where p =6 3, 5 is a prime number, G is a connected bi-regular graph with A1 = {v1,...,vp} and A2 = {u1,...,up}, and the induced subgraphs G[A1] and G[A2] are non- isomorphic circulant graphs.

8 Proof. There are four graphs on 3 vertices. It is an easy task to check that all these graphs have the distinguishing threshold 3 which proves item (a). Moreover, there are eleven graphs on 4 vertices, among which only P4 has the distinguishing threshold 3, see Figure 2. It is straightforward to check that P4 satisﬁes item (b). Thus we suppose that G is a graph with θ(G)=3 and n = |G| ≥ 5. We prove that the statement (b) holds for G. Lemma 2.3 implies that m(G) ≥ n − 1. This means that for an arbitrary α ∈ Aut(G) \{id}, we have m(α) ≥ n − 1. Thus, we have the following two cases.

Case 1. m(α) = n − 1. By Lemma 2.2 we know also that |α| is at most 2. Since m(α) =6 n, it must be the case that |α| = 2. Consequently, the only vertex that is ﬁxed by α, say v, must belong to a separate cycle from the rest of vertices. Thus, either v is on an edge, which means that it has to be adjacent to all other vertices, or v is an isolated vertex. By Theorem 2.4, both cases require G \ v to be isomorphic to K2 or K2. This is a contradiction to our assumption that n ≥ 5.

Case 2. m(α) = n. Again by lemma 2.2, α must have at most 2 cycles. We split this case, in turn, into the following two sub-cases.

Case 2.1. α is mono-cyclic. In this case, the automorphism γ in the proof of Theorem 2.4, is a reﬂection on n ≥ 5 vertices, which has at least 3 cycles. Existence of such an automorphism contradicts Lemma 2.2. Case 2.2. |α| = 2, and both of these cycles are not of length of a prime number p. If the length of one of these two cycles is a composite number, say st, then αs and αt are automorphisms with 3 or more cycles, which is again a violation of Lemma 2.2. Therefore, both cycles of α have prime lengths, say p and q. If p < q, then it is straightforward to see that αp is a non-identity automorphism whose number of cycles are strictly greater than 2, a contradiction to Lemma 2.2 and the fact that θ(G)=3. This implies that p = q.

Therefore, we have |α| = 2 and the two cycles of α have the same length which is a prime number p ≥ 3. Without loss of generality we can assume that α =(v1,...,vp)(u1,...,up). We set A1 = {v1 ...,vp} and A2 = {u1,...,up}. Since A1 ∪A2 = V (G), G must be bi-regular because the degrees of the vertices in A1 have to be the equal; the same for the vertices in A2. Moreover, since α has two cycles, both induced sub-graphs G[A1] and G[A2] are circulant graphs of prime order p. Note that there are two circulant graphs on 3 vertices, namely K3 and K3, and three circulant graphs on 5 vertices, say K5, K5 and C5. Since any combination of these graphs cannot generate a graph whose distinguishing threshold is 3, we have p =36 , 5. ∼ Finally, suppose that we have G[A1] = G[A2]. For j =1,...,p, let

Xj = {ui : vj ∼ ui , i =1,...,p}.

9 By the deﬁnition of α, we must have u1 ∼ vj whenever u j ∈ X1, where the minus is taken − modulo p. This shows that the map

η : V (G) −→ V (G)

ui x = vi ∈A1 η(x)= v i x = ui ∈A2 ( − is another automorphism of G. It is obvious that η has p ≥ 3 cycles, a contradiction to Lemma 2.2. This completes the proof.

K3 K3 P3 P 3 P4

Figure 2: small graphs whose distinguishing threshold equal to 3

According to Theorem 2.6, there exist numerous graphs whose distinguishing thresholds are equal to 3. Indeed, we can construct an inﬁnite family of such graphs. The following example demonstrate how this can be done.

Example 2.7. It is easy to show that every non-trivial automorphism of the graph G in Figure 3 has only two cycles: one whose support is the 7 outer vertices and the other whose ∼ support is the 7 inner ones. Moreover, it is not hard to show that Aut(G) = Z7. The way each outer vertex is adjacent to the inner ones induces a 2-distinguishing coloring on them, where one colors the inner vertices adjacent to the outer one by color 1 and the remaining vertices by color 2. In a similar way and by replacing 7 by any prime number p > 7, one can construct graphs with the similar property. Therefore, there are inﬁnitely many graphs with the distinguishing threshold 3.

Furthermore, in the following example, we extend this argument to all thresholds t ≥ 4.

Example 2.8. The graphs G1 and G2 in Figures 4 and 5, respectively, have the property that their automorphism group is isomorphic to Zp where p ≥ 3 is a prime number, and we have θ(G1)=4 and θ(G2)=5. Similar to G1, one can construct inﬁnitely many graphs with threshold equal to 4. Also, the graph G2 can easily be used to generate a graph whose distinguishing threshold is t ≥ 5. If we make the central vertex o adjacent with an end vertex of a path of length t to generate a new graph Gt+5, then we have θ(Gt+5)= t +5.

We recall that for any graph G, the threshold is bounded D(G) ≤ θ(G) ≤ |V (G)|, where the second bound follows from the fact that any coloring which uses as many colors as |V (G)| is

10 Figure 3: a graph on 14 vertices whose distinguishing threshold equals 3

Figure 4: graph G1 whose distinguishing threshold is 4

Figure 5: graph G2 whose distinguishing threshold is 5 trivially distinguishing. In what follows, we study the graphs for which the lower bound holds with equality. More speciﬁcally, as another consequence of Lemma 2.2, we prove that the lower bound holds with equality only if the threshold is trivial unless the graph is asymmetric.

Theorem 2.9. If for a graph G, we have θ(G)= D(G), then either θ(G)=1 or θ(G)= |V (G)|.

11 Proof. Suppose that G has some symmetries and on the contrary we have θ(G) < |V (G)|. Let θ(G) = q and assume α is a non-identity automorphism of G for which |α| is maximum and that α = σ1 ··· σrγ1 ··· γs is the cycle decomposition of α, where σis are of lengths ≥ 2 and all γjs have the length 1. According to Lemma 2.2, we have r + s = q − 1. As |α| is maximum, with the same reason as in the proof of Theorem 2.4, the length of σi is p, i =1,...,r, where p is a prime number. Since q = D(G), every coloring of G with q − 1 colors is non-distinguishing. We consider two cases.

Case 1. r ≥ 2. In this case, we consider the following coloring c with q − 1 colors. We color all the vertices in Supp(σi), i = 2,...,r, with the unique color i, and the vertex in Supp(γj), j = 1,...,s, with the color j; then, color a certain vertex v ∈ Supp(σ1) with color 2 and all the other vertices in Supp(σ1) with color 1. Since c is not distinguishing, there must be a non-identity automorphism β of G which preserves c. This implies that β(Supp(γj)) = Supp(γj), for j = 1,...,s, β(Supp(σi)) = Supp(σi), for i = 3,...,r, β(Supp(σ1)−{v}) = Supp(σ1)−{v} and β(Supp(σ2)∪{v}) = Supp(σ2)∪{v}. This shows that there is a power βℓ of β which is not the identity and |βℓ| > |α|, a contradiction.

Case 2. r =1. We split this case into the following two sub-cases.

Case 2.1. s ≥ 1. Since θ(G) < |V (G)|, according to Lemma 2.2, the length of σ1 is at least 3. If its length is equal to 3, and s =1, then G has to be either K4, K4, K1,3 or K1 ∪K3, which is a contradiction. On the other hand, if the length of σ1 is equal to 3 and s ≥ 2 or if the length of σ1 is at least 5, then we consider the following coloring c with q − 1 colors. We color the vertex in Supp(γj), j = 1,...,s, with the color j; then, color a certain vertex v ∈ Supp(σ1) with color 1 and the other two vertices in Supp(σ1) with color s +1. Then, since c is not distinguishing, the existence of a non-identity automorphism β of G, leads us to a similar contradiction as in Case 1.

Case 2.2. s = 0. In this case we have α = σ1 which, according to Lemma 2.2, implies that θ(G)=2. Now the assumption that θ(G) < |V (G)|, contradicts Theorem 2.4.

This completes the proof.

We note that the converse of Theorem 2.9 does not hold; for example θ(Kn,n)= |V (Kn,n)| while D(Kn,n) = n +1 (see [1]). Furthermore, in the light of Theorem 2.9, we can rephrase Theorem 2.4 as follows: for any graph G, θ(G)= D(G)=2 holds if and only if G is either K2 or K2. It turns out that we can generalize this result in the following fashion.

Theorem 2.10. For a graph G on n vertices, we have θ(G)= D(G) if and only if G is either asymmetric, the complete graph Kn or the empty graph Kn.

Proof. The “if” part is obvious. For the converse, suppose that Aut(G) is not trivial. Note that according to Theorem 2.9, any coloring of G with n − 1 colors is not distinguishing. Consider two distinct vertices u, v ∈ V (G) and color both of them with color 1 and assign a unique color

12 2,...,n − 1 to each of the other vertices of G. Since this coloring is not distinguishing, there is a non-identity automorphism β of G which swaps the vertices u and v and fixes all the other vertices. Thus N(u) \{v} = N(v) \{u}, where N(u) is the set of neighbors of u. Using a similar coloring argument, one deduces that this equality holds for any pair of vertices of G, which implies that G is either the complete or the empty graph. As we noted in the introduction, the problem of distinguishing colorings of infinite graphs has been studied in many interesting research works. It is, therefore, an interesting problem to consider the distinguishing threshold for infinite graphs. We conclude this section with the following theorem which states that in order to guarantee that any coloring of an infinite graph breaks its non-trivial symmetries, one needs infinitely many colors. Theorem 2.11. Let G be an infinite graph. Then either θ(G)=1 or θ(G)= ∞. Proof. If G is asymmetric, then θ(G)=1. Hence we assume there is a non-trivial α ∈ Aut(G). We split the proof into the following two cases:

Case 1. We have |α| = k < ∞. In this case, there must be a cycle σi in the cycle representation of α = σ1 · σ2 ····· σk, which contains inﬁnitely many vertices. We assume that the set of moved points of σi is countable and, hence, we can write

σi =(...,vj−2 , vj−1 , vj0 , vj1 , vj2 ,...).

We point out that if the set of moved points of σi is not countable, then our proof is still valid but we must proceed into transﬁnite. Let t< ∞ be an arbitrary positive inte-

ger. Some cycles of α may contain ﬁnitely many vertices. Suppose that σw1 , σw2 ,...σwr are all cycles of α which contain s1,s2,...,sr vertices, respectively, where s1,s2,...,sr are positive integers and 0 ≤ r

ports of σw1 , σw2 ,...σwr with color 1 and color the rest of vertices of G as follows. Let γ : {0, 1,...,q − 1} −→ {1, 2,...,t} be a surjective function. Such a function exists

because q ≥ t. Now, we choose a cycle σi, whose length is inﬁnite, and color its vertex vjh by γ(h mod q). We repeat this procedure until all inﬁnite cycles of α are colored. The resulting coloring is a t-coloring for G which is not distinguishing because αq preserves it.

Case 2. We have |α| = ∞. In this case, for any ﬁnite number t, there is a t-coloring that keeps every cycle of α mono-colored. Thus, again we have θ(G) > t.

Therefore the result follows.

3 Johnson Scheme

In this section we determine the distinguishing threshold of the graphs in the Johnson scheme. We assume n and k are integers such that n ≥ 2k ≥ 2, and the set {1,...,n} is denoted by

13 [n]. For any i =1,...,k, the graph J(n, k, i) is deﬁned to be the graph whose vertex set is the set of all k-subsets of [n] and in which two vertices A and B are adjacent if |A ∩ B| = k − i. It n can be shown that the set A = {A0, A1,...,Ak}, where A0 is the identity matrix of order k and, for any i =1,...,k, A is the adjacency matrix of J(n,k,k − i), constitutes an association i scheme (we refer the reader to [10] for detailed studies on association schemes). This scheme is called the Johnson scheme, denoted by J(n, k), and the classes J(n, k, i), 1 ≤ i ≤ k, are called the generalized Johnson graphs. The special cases of J(n,k,k) and J(n, k, 1) are called the Kneser graph, denoted by K(n, k), and the Johnson graph, respectively. The natural action of the symmetric group Sym(n) on [n], obviously preserves the adjacency- nonadjacency relations in J(n, k, i), for any i = 1,...,k. Therefore, Sym(n) is isomorphic to a subgroup of Aut(J(n, k, i)). The automorphism groups of the so-called “merged Johnson graphs” have been evaluated by Jones [20]. The merged Johnson graphs are, indeed, the unions of some graphs in the Johnson scheme. We re-state [20, Theorem 2] to suit our case, where we study the individual graphs in the scheme, i.e. the generalized Johnson graphs. As in [20], we 1 n will use the notation e = 2 k and that given two groups Γ1 and Γ2, the groups Γ1 : Γ2 and Γ ≀ Γ are their “semi-direct product” and “wreath product”, respectively. 1 2 Theorem 3.1. [20] Assume that 2 ≤ k ≤ n/2.

n 1 ∼ (a) If 2 ≤ k < −2 , then Aut(J(n, k, i)) = Sym(n), for each i =1,...,k. n 1 k+1 ∼ (b) If k = −2 and i =6 2 , then Aut(J(n, k, i)) = Sym(n). n 1 k+1 ∼ (c) If k = −2 and i = 2 , then Aut(J(n, k, i)) = Sym(n + 1). n ∼ (d) If k = 2 and k =2, then Aut(J(n, k, i)) = Sym(2) ≀ Sym(3), for each i =1, 2. n k ∼ (e) If k = 2 , k > 2, i 2 and i = 2 , then Aut(J(n, k, i)) = Sym(2) : Sym(n). n ∼ (g) If k = 2 , k > 2 and i = k, then Aut(J(n, k, i)) = Sym(2) ≀ Sym(e). Note that in the case (d), the Johnson scheme J(n, k)= J(4, 2) has only two complementary graphs on 6 vertices, where J(4, 2, 2) = K(4, 2) consists of 3 copies of K2; hence the automorphism groups of J(4, 2, 1) and J(4, 2, 2) are isomorphic to Sym(2) ≀ Sym(3). Similarly, in the case (g), the generalized Johnson graph J(2k,k,k), i.e. the Kneser graph K(2k,k), consists of e copies of K2 resulting the mentioned automorphism group.

Remark 3.2. According to [20], the rather unusual action of Aut(J(n, k, i)) ∼= Sym(n + 1) mentioned in part (c) of Theorem 3.1 is as follows. We add an external object ∞ to N = [n] to obtain a new set N ∗ = {1, . . . , n, ∞} and consider the natural action of Sym(n + 1) on N ∗. If σ ∈ Sym(n + 1), in order to ﬁnd the image of a vertex X ∈ V (J(n, k, i)) under the corresponding automorphism σ˜ of σ in Aut(J(n, k, i)), we construct the equipartition (P1,P2)=

(X ∪{∞}, X ∪ {∞}) of N ∗. Then, we make σ act naturally on the pair (P1,P2) to get (P1′,P2′).

14 The image σ˜(X) is, then, Pj′ \∞, where ∞ ∈ Pj′. Because of the adjacency condition on the generalized Johnson graph J(n, k, i), this is indeed an automorphism. It is clear that the stabilizer of ∞ in Sym(n + 1), which is equal to Sym(n), acts naturally (as mentioned before Theorem 3.1) on the vertices of J(n, k, i). Consider, for example, the case of J(7, 3, 2) whose parameters satisfy the conditions in part (c). If σ = (1 2 ∞)(3 4 5)(6 7) ∈ Sym(8) and X = {1, 2, 3},Y = {3, 4, 5} ∈ V (J(7, 3, 2)), then σ˜(X)= {2, 4, 1} and σ˜(Y )= {2, 7, 6}. Using Theorem 3.1, one can evaluate the distinguishing number and the distinguishing threshold of the generalized Johnson graphs. We ﬁrst note that the Kneser graph K(n, 1) = J(n, 1, 1) is the complete graph Kn; hence D(K(n, 1)) = |K(n, 1)| = n. In addition, the Kneser graph K(5, 2) = J(5, 2, 2) is isomorphic to the Petersen graph. Albertson and Collins proved [3] that the distinguishing number of the Petersen graph K(5, 2) is equal to 3. Surprisingly, for k ≥ 2 the Petersen graph is the only Kneser graph which is not 2-distinguishable. In fact, Albertson and Boutin proved [2] that for any n =6 5 and k ≥ 2, we have D(K(n, k)) = 2. Furthermore, based on Theorem 3.1, Kim et al. in [23] evaluated the distinguishing number of all merged Johnson graphs which generalized the above results. Similar to Theorem 3.1, we rephrase their results, in terms of single classes of the Johnson scheme, as follows. Theorem 3.3. [23] Assume that 2 ≤ k ≤ n/2. (a) If n =5 and k =2, then D(J(n, k, 1)) = D(J(n, k, 2)) = 3.

n (b) If n =56 and 2 ≤ k < 2 , then D(J(n, k, i))=2, for each i =1,...,k. n k (c) If k = 2 and i∈{ / 2 ,k}, then D(J(n, k, i))=2. n k (d) If k = 2 and i = 2 , then D(J(n, k, i))=3.

n 1+√1+8e (e) If k = 2 and i = k, then D(J(n, k, i)) = ⌈ 2 ⌉. We now turn our attention to the problem of determining the distinguishing threshold of the graphs in the Johnson scheme. As mentioned above, J(n, 1, 1) consists only of the complete graph Kn; hence θ(J(n, 1, 1)) = n. Thus, we consider only the case where k ≥ 2. Theorem 3.4. Assume that 2 ≤ k ≤ n/2.

n n 2 (a) If 2 ≤ k

α˜ =(X1 ∪{1} , X1 ∪{2})(X2 ∪{1} , X2 ∪{2}) ··· (Xr ∪{1} , Xr ∪{2}),

15 where X1,...,Xr are all the (k − 1)-subsets of {3, 4,...,n} and, hence,

n − 2 r = . k − 1 Note that α˜ is the image of the transposition α = (1, 2) ∈ Sym(n) or α = (1, 2) ∈ Sym(n + 1) under action of Sym(n) or Sym(n + 1), respectively, on J. The number of cycles in α˜ is

n n − 2 |α˜| = ν − r = − . (3.1) k k − 1 Hence, according to Lemma 2.2, it suffices to show that |α˜| is the maximum in Aut(J). Assume first that Aut(J) ∼= Sym(n) and let β ∈ Sym(n) be any non-identity permutation and β˜ be its image in Aut(J). Let M be the set of moved points of β acting on [n] and that m = |M|; hence 1 < m ≤ n. A vertex X ∈ V (J) is fixed under the action of β on V (J) if and only if M ∩X = ∅ ˜ n m n m or M ⊆ X. Therefore, the number of vertices in V (J) fixed by β is x = k−m + −k , and − the number of vertices moved by β˜ is n − x. It then follows that k 1 n 1 n |β˜| ≤ x + − x = + x . 2 k 2 k On the other hand, n − 2 n − 2 x ≤ + . k − 2 k Hence 1 n n − 2 n − 2 |β˜| ≤ + + = |α˜|, 2 k k − 2 k which proves the claim. Now, assume that Aut(J) ∼= Sym(n+1). Suppose σ ∈ Sym(n+1). According to Remark 3.2, if σ fixes ∞, then similar to the previous case, we have |σ˜|≤|α˜|. Hence, we assume that σ(∞) =6 ∞. A vertex X of J is fixed by the automorphism σ˜, if and only if X is set-wise stabilized under the action of σ. Thus, in order to have the most number of fixed vertices, σ must have a largest fixed set. We conclude that |σ˜| is maximized when σ is a transposition. Without loss of generality, we assume that σ = (1 ∞). Then it is easy to see that

σ˜ =(X1, X1 ∪{1})(X2, X2 ∪{1}) ··· (Xs, Xs ∪{1}), where Xi are all the k-subsets of {2, 3,...,n}. Hence

n 1 n − 1 n k n − 1 n n − 2 |σ˜| = − = − = − = |α˜|, k 2 k k n − 1 k k k − 1 which complete the proof of (a).

16 Part (b) follows from the fact that the map which swaps the two vertices {1,...,k} and {k +1,...,n}, and fixes all the other vertices of J, is indeed an automorphism of J having ν − 1 cycles. To show part (c), the map α˜ defined in part (a) is again in Aut(J), as well. Hence it suffices to show that it, again, has the largest number of cycles in Aut(J). According to Theorem 3.1, Aut(J) =∼ Sym(2) × Sym(n). In fact, the complementary map δ is an automorphism of J (of order two) and any automorphism γ˜ of J is of the form γ˜ = δjβ˜ = βδ˜ j, where j = 0 or 1 and β˜ is the image of a permutation β ∈ Sym(n) under the natural action of Sym(n) on [n]. This implies that |γ˜|≤|α˜| and, hence, the result follows.

In [1], the distinguishing threshold of the Kneser graphs K(n, 2) has been determined. We point out that Theorem 3.4 generalizes this result to all Kneser graphs K(n, k).

4 Conclusion and future work

The problem of ﬁnding the distinguishing threshold of a graph seems an interesting one and in this paper we considered it in more depth. Along with studying the graphs with small thresholds, we established a strong connection between the threshold and the cycle structure of the automorphisms of the graph and, using this approach, we could completely evaluate the thresholds of the generalized Johnson graphs. We conclude the paper with considering a similar problem for the Cayley graphs Cay(Γ,S). While the distinguishing number and the distinguishing index of Cayley graphs are studied by Alikhani and Soltani [5], we propose the following problem in which the knowledge of the structures of the automorphism groups can play a key role.

Problem. Evaluate the distinguishing threshold of the Cayley graphs.

We recall that for any g ∈ Γ, the action of Γ on itself by left multiplication by g naturally induces an automorphism of Cay(Γ,S) (which, in turn, shows that Cayley graphs are vertex-transitive). Therefore, in this case, one already knows that Γ is isomorphic to a subgroup of Aut(Cay(Γ,S)). Indeed the family of Cayley graphs is another family of graphs whose automorphism groups have been studied extensively; see for example [19] by Jajcay. As mentioned in Section 2, we consider only the connected Cayley graphs, i.e. the graphs Cay(Γ,S) in which S generates the group Γ. Based on examples, the problem looks quite challenging. For instance, the complete graphs are Cayley graphs with trivial thresholds while the Cayley graphs Cay(Zn, {a, −a}), n where 0 =6 a is relatively prime to n, are cycles whose thresholds are ⌊ 2 ⌋ +2 for n ≥ 3, which is not trivial. As another example, in which the group is abelian but not cyclic, consider G6 = Cay(Z2 ⊕ Z3, {(1, 0), (0, 1), (0, 2)}); see Figure 6. It is not hard to see that the map α which swaps the vertices (0, 1), (0, 2), swaps the vertices (1, 1), (1, 2), and ﬁxes the other vertices, is an automorphism of G6 with |α| = 4 which is maximum. Thus, according to Lemma 2.2, we have θ(G6)=5 which displays another

17 Figure 6: The graph G6.

non-trivial example. Further, as a non-abelian non-trivial example, one can consider G24 = Cay(S4, {(1, 2), (2, 3), (2, 4)}) on the symmetric group S4 which is a connected cubic bipartite graph. With an easy computer search, we observe that there is an α ∈ Aut(G24) that is the product of 8 transpositions and, hence, |α| = 16 which is maximum. This shows that θ(G24)=17, far smaller than the number of vertices.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to express their special thanks to Amir Mohammad Ghazanfari for his enlightening comments during the research work.

References

[1] B. Ahmadi, F. Alinaghipour, and M. H. Shekarriz. Number of distinguishing colorings and partitions. Discrete Mathematics, 343(9):111984, 2020. 1, 2, 2, 2, 3

[2] M. O. Albertson and D. L. Boutin. Using determining sets to distinguish kneser graphs. The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, 14(1):#R20, 2007. 3

[3] M. O. Albertson and K. L. Collins. Symmetry breaking in graphs. The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, 3(1):#R18, 1996. 1, 3

[4] S. Alikhani and S. Soltani. The distinguishing number and distinguishing index of the lexicographic product of two graphs. Discussiones Mathematicae Graph Theory, 38:853– 865, 2018. 1

[5] S. Alikhani and S. Soltani. The distinguishing numbers and the distinguishing indexes of cayley graphs. Journal of Applied and Industrial Mathematics, 15:1–6, 2021. 4

[6] L. Babai. Asymmetric trees with two prescribed degrees. Acta Mathematica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 29(1-2):193–200, 1977. 1

[7] B. Bogstad and L. Cowen. The distinguishing number of hypercubes. Discrete Mathemat- ics, 283:29–35, 2004. 1

18 [8] K. L. Collins and A. N. Trenk. The distinguishing chromatic number. The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, 13:#R16, 2006. 1

[9] R. Diestel. Graph theory. Graduate texts in mathematics 173. Springer, 5th edition, 2017. 1

[10] B. Eiichi and I. Tatsuro. Algebraic combinatorics i. association schemes. Mathematics Lecture Note Series, 1984. 1, 3

[11] M. N. Ellingham and J. Z. Schroeder. Distinguishing partitions and asymmetric uniform hypergraphs. Ars Mathematica Contemporanea, 4:111–123, 2011. 1

[12] C. Godsil and G. Royle. Algebraic graph theory. Graduate texts in mathematics 207. Springer, 2001. 2

[13] R. Hemminger. The group of an x-join of graphs. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, 5:408–418, 1968. 1

[14] W. Imrich, J. Jerebic, and S. Klavžar. The distinguishing number of cartesian products of complete graphs. European Journal of Combinatorics, 29(4):922–929, 2008. 1

[15] W. Imrich, R. Kalinowski, F. Lehner, and M. Pilśniak. Endomorphism breaking in graphs. The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, 21(1):#P1.16, 2014. 1

[16] W. Imrich, R. Kalinowski, M. Pilśniak, and M. H. Shekarriz. Bounds for distinguishing invariants of inﬁnite graphs. The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, 24(3):#P3.6, 2017. 1

[17] W. Imrich, S. Klavžar, and V. Troﬁmov. Distinguishing inﬁnite graphs. The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, 14:#R36, 2007. 1

[18] W. Imrich and S. Klavžar. Distinguishing cartesian powers of graphs. Journal of Graph Theory, 53:250–260, 2006. 1

[19] Robert Jajcay. The structure of automorphism groups of cayley graphs and maps. Journal of Algebraic Combinatorics, 12(1):73–84, 2000. 4

[20] G. A. Jones. Automorphisms and regular embeddings of merged johnson graphs. European Journal of Combinatorics, 26(3-4):417–435, 2005. 1, 3, 3.1, 3.2

[21] R. Kalinowski and M. Pilśniak. Distinguishing graphs by edge-colourings. European Jour- nal of Combinatorics, 45:124–131, 2015. 1

[22] R. Kalinowski, M. Pilśniak, and M. Woźniak. Distinguishing graphs by total colourings. Ars Mathematica Contemporanea, 11:79–89, 2016. 1

19 [23] D. Kim, Y. S. Kwon, and J. Lee. The distinguishing numbers of merged johnson graphs. The Bulletin of the Korean Mathematical Society, 52(2):395–408, 2015. 1, 3, 3.3

[24] S. Klavžar, T. L. Wong, and X. Zhu. Distinguishing labelings of group action on vector spaces and graphs. Journal of Algebra, 303:626–641, 2006. 1

[25] C. Laﬂamme, L. Nguyen Van Thé, and N. Sauer. Distinguishing number of countable homogeneous relational structures. The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, 17:#R20, 2010. 1

[26] J. Morris. Automorphism groups of circulant graphs - a survey. Graph Theory in Paris (Trends in Mathematics), pages 311–325, 2006. 2

[27] A. Russell and R. Sundaram. A note on the asymptotics and computational complexity of graph distinguishability. The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, 5:#R23, 1998. 2

[28] T. W. Tucker. Distinguishing maps. The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, 18:#P50, 2011. 1