\section{Introduction}

In this paper,  all  graphs   are finite and  simple, and all multigraphs are finite and loopless.     For a graph $G$, we use $V(G)$, $E(G)$, $|G|$,  $e(G)$, $\Delta(G)$,  $\delta(G)$ and $\alpha(G)$ to denote the vertex set, edge set, number of vertices, number of   edges, maximum degree,   minimum degree, and independence number of $G$, respectively.  Given   sets $S\subseteq V(G)$ and $F\subseteq E(G)$,  we use        $G\setminus S$ to denote the subgraph    obtained from $G$ by deleting all vertices in $S$,   $G\setminus F$ the subgraph    obtained from $G$ by deleting all edges in $F$, and $G[S] $    the  subgraph    obtained from $G$ by deleting all vertices in $V(G)\setminus S$.   For  two disjoint sets $A, B\subseteq V(G)$,    $A$ is \dfn{complete} to $B$ in $G$  if each vertex in $A$ is adjacent to all vertices in  $B$, and \dfn{anti-complete} to $B$ in $G$  if no  vertex in $A$ is adjacent to any vertex  in  $B$.
We simply say $a$ is \dfn{complete to} (resp. \dfn{anticomplete to}) $B$ when $A=\{a\}$.
For convenience, we use   $A \setminus B$ to denote  $A -B$; and $A \setminus b$ to denote  $A -\{b\}$ when $B=\{b\}$.  We use the convention   ``$S:=$'' to mean that $S$ is defined to be the right-hand side of the relation.  The degree
and neighborhood of a vertex $v$ in $G$ are denoted by $d_G(v)$ and $N_G(v)$, respectively. We
define  $N_G[v]:=N_G(v)\cup\{v\}$.   If no confusion arises, we omit the subscript $G$ in the above notation.
 Let $H$ be a   connected graph.    The \dfn{distance}  $d_H(x, y)$ of two vertices  $x$ and $y$ is   the length of a shortest  $(x,y)$-path in $H$.  The \dfn{radius}  $r(H)$ of   $H$ is defined to be $\min_{x\in V(H)}\max_{y\in V(H)} d_H(x, y)$.  Given $X\subseteq V(H)$ and $v\in V(H)\setminus X$,  we define  $d_H(v, X):= min_{x\in X} d_H(v, x)$.
  For a positive integer $k$, we write  $[k]$ for the set $\{1,2, \ldots, k\}$.  We use $P_n$,  $C_n$, $K_n$, $S_{n-1}$  and $W_{n-1}$ to denote the path,    cycle, complete graph, star and   wheel  on $n$ vertices, respectively.

\medskip

  An \dfn{antimagic labeling} of a graph $G$ with $m$ edges is a bijection $\tau:  E(G) \rightarrow  [m]$ such that for any distinct vertices $u$ and $v$, the sum of labels on edges incident to $u$ differs from the sum of labels on edges incident  to $v$.   A graph   is \dfn{antimagic} if it has an antimagic labeling. Hartsfield and Ringel~\cite{NG} introduced antimagic labelings in 1990 and conjectured that every connected graph  other than $K_2$  is  antimagic.  The most recent  progress on this problem is a   result of   Eccles~\cite{E}, which states that   there exists an absolute constant $c_0$ such  that if   $G$  is a graph with average
degree at least $c_0$, and $G$ contains no isolated edge and at most one isolated vertex, then $G$ is
antimagic.  This    improves  a  result of Alon, Kaplan, Lev, Roditty, and Yuster~\cite{Alon}, which states that there exists an absolute   constant  $c$ such that  every   graph on $n$ vertices with minimum degree at least $c\log n$  is antimagic.    Hartsfield and Ringel's Conjecture has also been verified to be true for $d$-regular graphs with $d\ge2$ (see~\cite{KAM, CLPZ, DC, DYZ}),  and   graphs $G$  with $\Delta(G)\geq|G|-3\geq6$ by   Yilma \cite{Yilma}. For more information on antimagic labelings of graphs and related labeling problems, see the  recent  informative survey~\cite{JAG}.\medskip

Motivated by Hartsfield and Ringel's Conjecture, Hefetz, M\"{u}tze, and Schwartz~\cite{DTJ} introduced antimagic labeling  of digraphs. Let $D$ be a  digraph with $m$ arcs.  Let $\{a_1, \ldots, a_m\}$ be a set of  $m$ positive integers. For every bijection    $\tau: A(D)\rightarrow \{a_1,   \ldots, a_m\}$ and for each vertex  $u\in V(D)$, we define $s_{(D,\tau)}(u)$  to be
 the sum of labels of all arcs entering $u$ minus the sum of labels of all arcs leaving $u$ under $\tau$ when $u$ is not an isolated vertex in $D$, and $s_{(D,\tau)}(u):=0$ when $u$ is an isolated vertex in $D$;.   A bijection $\tau: A(D)\rightarrow [m]$ is     an \dfn{antimagic labeling} of $D$ if  $s_{(D,\tau)}(u)\neq s_{(D,\tau)}(v)$ for all   distinct vertices $u$ and $v$ in $D$.      A digraph $D$ is \dfn{antimagic} if it has an antimagic labeling.
 We say $(D, \tau)$ is  an  \dfn{antimagic orientation}   of a graph $G$  if    $D$  is an orientation of $G$ and $\tau$ is       an antimagic labeling of $D$.
 Hefetz, M\"{u}tze, and Schwartz~\cite{DTJ}  proved that   every orientation of       $S_n$ with $n\neq2$,  $K_n$ with $n\ne3$, and   $W_n$ with $n\ge3$ is antimagic, they further
 asked whether it is true that    every orientation of any connected  graph, other than $K_3$ and $P_3$, is antimagic.   The same authors   proved an analogous result of Alon, Kaplan, Lev, Roditty, and Yuster~\cite{Alon}, which states that there exists an absolute constant $c$ such that every orientation of any  graph on $n$ vertices with minimum degree at least $c\log n$ is antimagic.  As pointed out in \cite{DTJ}, ``Proving that every orientation of such a graph is antimagic, however, seems rather difficult.''  As a relaxation of this problem, Hefetz, M\"{u}tze, and Schwartz~\cite{DTJ}  proposed the following conjecture.

 \begin{conj}[\cite{DTJ}]\label{conj}
Every connected graph admits an antimagic orientation.
\end{conj}
 Conjecture~\ref{conj} has been verified to be true for  odd regular graphs   \cite{DTJ},   disjoint union of cycles or  connected $2d$-regular graphs with $d\ge2$  by Li, Song, Wang, Yang, and Zhang   \cite{LSWY}, and   disconnected $2d$-regular graphs with $d\ge2$ by Yang  \cite{Y}.
 A  bipartite graph $G$ with bipartition $(A, B)$  is \dfn{$(a,b)$-biregular} if   each vertex in $A$ has degree $a$ and each vertex in $B$ has degree $b$.   Shan and Yu~\cite{SY} recently proved that  every $(a, b)$-biregular bipartite graph admits an antimagic orientation.
      Very recently,  it has been proven in \cite{maxdegree} that Conjecture~\ref{conj} holds for connected graphs $G$ on $n\ge9$ vertices with $\Delta(G)\ge n-5$  or graphs with a dominating set of size two.

\begin{thm}[\cite{maxdegree}]\label{dominating}
Let $G$ be a graph and let  $x,y\in V(G)$ be distinct  such that   $N[x]\cup N[y] =V(G)$ and $d(x)\ge d(y)$. If    $d(x)\ge4$    or $ N(x)\cap N[y] \ne\emptyset $, then $G$ admits an antimagic orientation.
\end{thm}

\begin{thm}[\cite{maxdegree}]\label{main} Let $G$ be a connected graph.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(i)]
\item If  $\Delta(G)\geq|G|-3$, then $G$ has an antimagic orientation.
\item If  $\Delta(G)=|G|-t\ge4$, where   $t\in\{4,5\}$,  then   $G$ has an antimagic orientation.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
 \medskip

In this paper,   we establish more evidence for  Conjecture \ref{conj}   by studying antimagic orientations of  graphs $G$   with $\alpha(G)\ge |G|/2$ or $\alpha(G)\le 4$.   Theorem~\ref{pm} is a result from \cite{DTJ}.

\begin{thm}[\cite{DTJ}]\label{pm}
Let $G$ be a graph on $2n$ vertices that admits a perfect matching, and let $A$ be an independent set in $G$ with $|A|=n$. If $d(v)\ge3$ for every $v\in A$, then $G$ admits an antimagic orientation.
\end{thm}
 \medskip

Following the ideas in the proof of Theorem~\ref{pm} given  in \cite{DTJ},
that is, using a different approach to generalizing (a directed version of) Cranston's result \cite{DC},
we first prove Theorem~\ref{independentset}  which  generalizes Theorem~\ref{pm}.

\begin{thm}\label{independentset}
Let $G$ be a graph  and let $A$ be an independent set of $G$ such that   $G$ has a matching  $M$ of size  $ |G|-|A|$ that saturates all vertices in $V(G)\setminus A$ and $d(v)\geq3$ for every $v\in A$. Then $G$ admits an antimagic orientation.
\end{thm}

We prove   Theorem~\ref{independentset}    in Section~\ref{largealpha}. It is worth noting  that  every  $(a,b)$-biregular bipartite graph with $  a\ge b\ge2 $ has a matching that saturates all vertices in $A$. Theorem~\ref{independentset} implies immediately that every $(a, b)$-biregular bipartite graph with $a\ge b\ge3$ admits an antimagic orientation.   \medskip

 We then study antimagic orientations of graphs $G$ with $\alpha(G)\le4$.  We prove the following Theorem \ref{alpha}.
 \begin{thm}\label{alpha} Let $G$ be a connected graph.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(i)]
\item If  $\alpha(G)\le2$, then $G$ has an antimagic orientation.
\item If  $\alpha(G)=3$ and $|G|\ge 13$, then $G$ has an antimagic orientation.
\item If  $\alpha(G)=4$ and $\delta(G)\ge11$,  then   $G$ has an antimagic orientation.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}

 Before we prove
 Theorem \ref{alpha}, we first prove a technical result (Theorem \ref{mainresult}) which is instrumental in the proof of Theorem  \ref{alpha}.
The proof of Theorem~\ref{mainresult} uses the  technique of  Eulerian orientations.     This strategy was previously  used in  \cite{DTJ, LSWY, Y, maxdegree}.
 Our method here has  new ideas and  is more involved.

 \begin{thm}\label{mainresult}
Let $G$ be a connected graph and let  $X =\{x_1,\ldots,x_t\}\subseteq V(G)$  with $t\in[3]$  such that $d_G(v,X)\le 2 $ for each $v\in V(G)\setminus X$,  and either
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(i)]
\item\label{qtau1}   $t=1$ and $ |N(x_1)|\ge 2 $;  or

 \item\label{qtau2}  $t=2$, $e(G)\ge 2|G|-5$   and there exist distinct vertices $y_1, \ldots,y_7\in V(G)\setminus X $ such that  $x_1$ is complete to either $\{ y_1,y_2, y_3, x_2\}$ or $\{  y_1,y_2, y_3, y_4\}$, and $x_2$ is complete to $\{y_4, \ldots, y_7\}$;  or
\item\label{qtau3}     $t=3$, $e(G)\ge2|G|-4$ and there exist distinct vertices $y_1, \ldots,y_{11}\in V(G)\setminus X $ such that  $x_1$ is complete to $\{y_1,y_2, y_3, y_4\}$,  $x_2$ is complete to $\{y_4, y_5, y_6, y_7,   y_8\}$,   and  $x_3$ is complete to either $\{ y_4, y_9,y_{10},y_{11}\}$ or    $\{ y_8, y_9,y_{10},y_{11}\}$.

 \end{enumerate}
Then $G$ admits an antimagic orientation.
\end{thm}

The proof of Theorem~\ref{alpha} is given in Section~\ref{Mainresult} and the proof of Theorem~\ref{mainresult} is given  in Section~\ref{alpha34}.    For the sake of a cleaner    presentation of the argument, we make no attempt to optimize the constraints in Theorem~\ref{mainresult}.  Corollary~\ref{radius2} follows immediately from Theorem~\ref{mainresult}(i),  and  Corollary~\ref{generalmax}  follows   from Theorem~\ref{dominating} and Corollary~\ref{radius2}. The proof of Corollary~\ref{main} is omitted here as it is similar to  the proof of Theorem~\ref{mainresult}(ii,iii)   when   every vertex of $  V(G)\setminus X$ is adjacent to a vertex of  $X$ in $G$.

 \begin{cor}\label{radius2}
Every  connected graph $G$ with $r(G)\le 2$  admits an antimagic orientation.

\end{cor}

\begin{cor}\label{generalmax}
Let $G$ be a graph with $|G|\ge 9$. If $\Delta(G)+\delta(G)\ge |G|-2$, then $G$ admits an antimagic orientation.
\end{cor}

 \begin{cor}\label{main}
Let $G$ be a connected graph  and let   $X =\{x_1,\ldots,x_t\}\subseteq V(G)$  with $t\in[3]$  such that  every vertex  in   $    V(G)\setminus X$ is adjacent to a vertex in $X$,    and either
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(i)]

 \item\label{qtau1}  $t=2$  and  $\big|N(x_1)\cap N[x_2]\big|\ge1$;  or
\item\label{qtau2}     $t=3$, $e(G)\ge 2|G|-4$ and there exist distinct vertices  $y_1,y_2\in V(G)\setminus X$ such that  $y_1$ is complete to $\{x_1,x_2\}$ and $y_2$ is complete to $\{x_2,x_3\}$ in $G$.

 \end{enumerate}
Then $G$ admits an antimagic orientation.
\end{cor}

     \medskip

\section{Preliminaries}\label{preliminary}
 In this section,   we shall prove a technical lemma  that  plays an important role in the proofs of our main results.  A closed walk in a multigraph is an \dfn{Euler tour} if
it traverses every edge of the graph exactly once. The following is a result of Euler which shall be needed in the proof of Lemma~\ref{euler}.
\begin{thm}[Euler 1736]\label{Euler}
A connected multigraph admits an  Euler tour if and only if every vertex has even degree.
\end{thm}

 \begin{lem}\label{euler}
  Let $p\ge0$ be an   integer and let    $G $ be a graph with $m\ge1$ edges. Then there exist an orientation $D $ of $G$ and   bijections $\sigma_i: A(D)\rightarrow   \{p+1,\ldots,p+m\}$,  where $i\in[2]$, such that    for all $v\in V(G)$,
  \begin{alignat*}{2}
 - \lfloor(d(v)-1)/{2}\rfloor -(p+m) &\le &s_{(D,\sigma_1)}(v) &\le -\lfloor(d(v)-1)/{2}\rfloor+(p+m), \text{ and} \\
 \lfloor(d(v)-1)/{2}\rfloor -(p+m) &\le{} &  s_{(D,\sigma_2)}(v) &\le   \lfloor(d(v)-1)/{2}\rfloor+(p+m).
\end{alignat*}
   \end{lem}
\medskip\noindent {\bf Proof.}~~  Let $G$, $m$ and  $p$ be given as  in the statement. We may assume that   $G$ is connected.  Let $A$ be the set (possibly empty) of all vertices $v\in V(G)$ with $d(v)$ odd. Then $|A|=2\ell$ for some integer $\ell\ge0$. Let $G^*:=G$ when $\ell=0$. When $\ell\ge1$, we may assume that $A:=\{x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_{2\ell}\}$.  Let $G^*$ be obtained from $G$ by adding $\ell$ new edges $x_ix_{i+\ell} $ for all $i\in[\ell]$.  Then $e(G^*)=m+\ell$. By Theorem~\ref{Euler},  $G^*$ contains an Euler tour, say $W$,  with vertices and edges $v_1, e_1, v_2, e_2, \ldots v_{m+\ell}, e_{m+\ell}, v_1$ in order, where $v_1, \ldots, v_{m+\ell}$ are not necessarily distinct, and edges $e_1=v_1v_2, e_2=v_2v_3, \ldots, e_{m+\ell}=v_{m+\ell}v_1$ are pairwise distinct. We may further assume that  $e_1\in E(G)$.  Let $1=i_1<i_2<\cdots< i_m\le m+\ell$ be such that $ e_{i_1},\ldots, e_{i_m}$ are all the edges of $G$.  Let $D$ be the orientation of $G$ obtained by orienting  each edge $e_{i_j}$ from $v_{i_j}$ to $v_{{i_j}+1}$ for each  $j\in[m]$, where all arithmetic on indices here and henceforth is done
modulo $m+\ell$.\medskip

Let $\sigma_1: E(G)\rightarrow  \{p+1,\ldots,p+m\}$ be the bijection such that $\sigma_1(e_{i_j})=p+j$ for all $j\in[m]$. It is worth noting  that for all $j, k\in[m]$ with $j<k$,    if $e_{i_j}$ and $e_{i_k}$ are two consecutive edges  on the Euler tour  $W$,  then $i_k=i_j+1$ and  $\sigma_1(e_{i_j})-\sigma_1(e_{i_k})=-1$, that is,   $\sigma_1(e_{i_j})-\sigma_1(e_{i_k})$ contributes $-1$ to   $s_{(D, \sigma_1)}(v_{i_k})$.  By the choice of $G^*$, for each   vertex $v \in V(G)$, there are      at least   $ \lfloor(d(v)-1)/{2}\rfloor $  many such pairs of consecutive edges (incident with $v$)  on the Euler tour $W$.  It follows that  for all $v\in V(G)$,
\[-\lfloor(d(v)-1)/{2}\rfloor -(p+m)\le s_{(D, \sigma_1)}(v)\le -\lfloor(d(v)-1)/{2}\rfloor +(p+m).\]

Next,  let $\sigma_2: E(G)\rightarrow  \{p+1,\ldots,p+m\}$ be the bijection such that $\sigma_2(e_{i_j})=m+p+1-j$ for all $j\in[m]$.   Then for all $j, k\in[m]$ with $j<k$,    if $e_{i_j}$ and $e_{i_k}$ are two consecutive edges   in the Euler tour  $W$,    then $i_k=i_j+1$ and  $\sigma_2(e_{i_j})-\sigma_2(e_{i_k})=1$, that is,   $\sigma_2(e_{i_j})-\sigma_2(e_{i_k})$ contributes $1$ to   $s_{(D, \sigma_2)}(v_{i_k})$.  It follows that  for all $v\in V(G)$,
\[\lfloor(d(v)-1)/{2}\rfloor -(p+m)\le s_{(D, \sigma_2)}(v)\le \lfloor(d(v)-1)/{2}\rfloor +(p+m).\]

This completes the proof of Lemma~\ref{euler}.
 \hfill $\blacksquare$\bigskip

 \noindent {\bf Remark}.  For the sake of simplicity and clarity of presentation, we  shall  apply  Lemma~\ref{euler} to graphs $H$ with no edges. Under those circumstances, we  shall   let   $D$ with    $V(D)=V(H)$ and   $A(D)=\emptyset$ be the orientation of $H$,   and $\tau: A(D)\rightarrow   \emptyset$  with $s_{(D, \tau)}(v)=0$ for all $v\in V(D)$  be the bijection. \medskip

  Lemma~\ref{partition} below is a result of Kaplan, Lev and Roditty that  will be needed in the proof of Theorem~\ref{independentset}.

\begin{lem}[\cite{KP}]\label{partition}
Let $t\ge 1$ and $n\ge2$ be   integers and let $n=r_1+\cdots+r_t$ be a partition of $n$, where  $r_i\ge2$ is an integer for all $i\in[t]$.   Then the set $\{1,2,\ldots, n\}$ can be partitioned into  pairwise disjoint subsets  $R_1,   \ldots,R_t$ such that for all $i\in[t]$,  $|R_i|=r_i$,  and $\sum_{r\in R_i}r\equiv0 \emph{ (mod    n+1)}$ if $n$ is even and $\sum_{r\in R_i}r\equiv0 \emph{ (mod    n)}$   if $n$ is odd.  \end{lem}

\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{independentset}}\label{largealpha}

Let $G$, $A $ and $M$ be given as in the statement.  Let $m:=e(G)$, $n_1:=|A|$ and $n_2:=V(G)\setminus A$. Then $n_1+n_2=|G|$. By the assumption of $A$ and $M$, we have $ n_1\ge   n_2\ge3$.   Let $A:=\{a_1, \ldots,a_{n_1}\}$ and $V(G)\setminus A:=\{b_1,\ldots,b_{n_2}\}$ such that $a_ib_i\in M$  for all $i\in[n_2]$.  For each $j\in\{n_2+1, \ldots, n_1\}$,  let  $e_j$ be an arbitrary edge incident with $a_j$ in $G$. Let $E_0:=\{e_{n_2+1},\ldots,e_{n_1}\}$ and let $H:=G\setminus (M\cup E_0\cup E(G\setminus A)$. Then $H$ is a bipartite graph with bipartition $(A, V(G)\setminus A)$.   For all $i\in [n_1]$, since $d_G(a_i)\ge3$, we see that $d_{H}(a_i)\geq2$.     Then $e(H)\ge 2n_1\ge6$  and $e(G\setminus A)=m-e(H)-|M\cup E_0|=m-n_1-e(H)$.
  By Lemma \ref{euler}  applied to $G\setminus A$ with $p=e(H)$, there exist an orientation $D'$ of $G\setminus A$ and a bijection $\sigma_1:A(D')\rightarrow  \{e(H)+1, \ldots, m-n_1\}$ such that for all  $j\in [n_2]$,   $s_{(D',\sigma_1)}(b_j)\leq m-n_1$.  Let  $D$ be the orientation of $G$ obtained from $D'$ by orienting every edge in $M\cup E_0 \cup E(H)$  towards  $A$.  We next label the edges in $M\cup E_0 \cup E(H)$. \medskip

  For all $i\in[n_1]$, let $A_i$ be the set of all edges incident with $a_i$ in  $H$. Then $|A_i|\ge2$ and $e(H)=|A_1|+\cdots+|A_{n_1}|$. By Lemma~\ref{partition} applied to $e(H)$ with $t=n_1$ and $r_i=|A_i|$ for all $i\in[t]$, the set  $\{1, \ldots, e(H)\}$ can be partitioned into   $R_1, \ldots, R_{n_1}$  such that for all $i\in[n_1]$,  $|R_i|=|A_i|$ and
$\sum_{r\in R_i}r\equiv0$  (mod   $q$),   where $q= e(H) +1$ if $e(H)$ is even and  $q= e(H)  $ if $e(H)$ is odd. Let $\tau_1: E_0\cup E(H)\rightarrow \{m-|E_0|+1, \ldots, m\}\cup \{1, \ldots, e(H)\}$ be a bijection such that edges in $E_0$ are labelled by integers in $\{m-|E_0|+1, \ldots, m\}$ and for all $i\in[n_1]$,  edges in $A_i$ are labelled by integers in $R_i$.   For each $j\in[n_2]$, let $s_{\tau_1}(b_j)$ denote the sum of labels on all edges incident with $b_j$  in $E_0\cup E(H)$   under $\tau_1$.  We may further assume that
\[s_{(D',\sigma_1)}(b_1)+s_{\tau_1}(b_1)\ge s_{(D',\sigma_1)}(b_2)+s_{\tau_1}(b_2)\ge\cdots\ge s_{(D',\sigma_1)}(b_{n_2})+s_{\tau_1}(b_{n_2}).\]
 Finally, let $\tau: A(D)\rightarrow [m]$ be the  bijection obtained from $\sigma_1$ and $\tau_1$ by letting $\tau(a_i b_i)=m-n_1+i$ for all $i\in[n_2]$; $\tau(e)=\sigma_1(e)$ for all $e\in E(G\setminus A)$; and $\tau(e)=\tau_1(e)$ for all $e\in E_0\cup E(H)$. \medskip

  By the choice of $(D, \tau)$,  $0>s_{(D,\tau)}(b_1)>  s_{(D,\tau)}(b_2)>\cdots>s_{(D,\tau)}(b_{n_2})$.
  Since $n_1< e(H)+1$, we see that for all $i, j\in[n_1]$ with $i\ne j$, $m-n_1+i\ne m-n_1+j$ (mod $q$). It follows that  $ s_{(D,\tau)}(a_i)>0$ for all $i\in[n_1]$ and $ s_{(D,\tau)}(a_1), s_{(D,\tau)}(a_2), \ldots, s_{(D,\tau)}(a_{n_1})$ are pairwise distinct. Therefore   $(D, \tau)$ is an antimagic orientation   of $G$.  \medskip

This completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{independentset}.  \hfill $\blacksquare$\bigskip

\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{mainresult}}\label{Mainresult}

Let $G$ and  $X=\{x_1,\ldots,x_t\}$  (and  $y_1, \ldots, y_{4t-1}$ when  $t\in \{2,3\}$)  be given as in the statement. Let   $n:=|G| $,  $m:=e(G)$ and  $\overline{X}:=V(G)\setminus X$.  Then $m\ge n-1$ and the statement holds for $n\le4$. We may assume that $n\ge5$.  Let
\[A_1:=\big\{v\in \overline{X}: vx_i\in E(G) \text{ for  some } i\in [t]\big\}  \text{, and }  A_2:= \overline{X} \setminus A_1 \text{ (possibly empty)}.\]
 Then every vertex in $A_1$ is adjacent to at least one vertex in $X$, and
every vertex  $v\in A_2$ is adjacent to at least one vertex in $A_1$ because $d_G(v,X)\le 2 $.  Let $n_i:=|A_i|$ for each $i\in [2]$. Then $n_1+n_2=n-t$.  For each $v\in A_1$, let $e_v:=vx_i$ for some $i\in [t]$ such that when $t=2$, $\{e_{y_1}, \ldots, e_{y_7}\}=\{y_1x_1, y_2x_1, y_3x_1, y_4x_2, y_5x_2, y_6x_2, y_7x_2\}$; and when $t=3$,  $\{e_{y_1}, \ldots,  e_{y_{11}}\}=\{y_1x_1, y_2x_1, y_3x_1, y_4x_2, \ldots, y_8x_2, y_9x_3, y_{10}x_3, y_{11}x_3\}$. Let $E_0:=\{e_v: v\in A_1\}$.
  Let $F$ be a spanning forest of $G$  with $t$ components $F_1,\ldots,F_t$ such that  $E_0\subseteq E(F)$ and for each $i\in[t]$, $x_i\in V(F_i)$   and $d_{F_i}(v,x_i)\leq2$ for every vertex $v\in V(F_i)$.  By the choice of $F$, $N_F(x_1), \ldots, N_F(x_t)$ are pairwise disjoint, $\cup_{i\in[t]}N_F(x_i)=A_1$,  and  for each  $v\in A_2$, $d_F(v)=1$.    Let $H:=G\setminus E(F)$ and let $E_1$ be the set of all edges  $e$ in $H$ such that  $e$ has an end in  $X$.       Then $E(G[X])\subseteq E_1$ and $m_1:=|E_1|\geq t-1$ for all  $t\in[3]$.  \medskip

 We next show that   there exist  an  orientation $D$ of $G$ and a bijection $\tau:A(D)\rightarrow [m]$  such that   \medskip

\par\hangindent\parindent\mytextindent{({\bf P1})}  vertices of $A_1$ can be enumerated as $u_1, \ldots, u_{n_1}$ with  $s_{(D,\tau)}(u_1)> \cdots>s_{(D,\tau)}(u_{n_1})>0$; and
\par\hangindent\parindent\mytextindent{({\bf P2})} vertices of $A_2$  can be enumerated as $v_1, \ldots, v_{n_2}$ with  $s_{(D,\tau)}(v_1)< \cdots<s_{(D,\tau)}(v_{n_2})\le0$; and
\par\hangindent\parindent\mytextindent{({\bf P3})}  for each $i\in[t]$,   $s_{(D,\tau)}(x_i)<s_{(D,\tau)}(v_1)$. Furthermore,   when $t=2$,  we have $s_{(D,\tau)}(x_2)+\tau(x_2y_4)<s_{(D,\tau)}(v_1)$;  and  when $t=3$, we have $s_{(D,\tau)}(x_2)+\tau(x_2y_4)+\tau(x_2y_8)<s_{(D,\tau)}(v_1)$. \medskip \\

   \noindent To find such an  orientation $D$, we first orient and label  the edges in $H\setminus X$. Note that for each $v\in A_1\cup A_2$, $d_{H\setminus X}(v)\le   n_1+n_2-1$.   By Lemma \ref{euler}  applied to $H\setminus X$, there exist  an orientation $D'$ of $H\setminus X$ and   bijections $\sigma_i: A(D') \rightarrow \{m_1+1, \ldots, m-n_1-n_2\}$, where $i\in[2]$,  such that for all $v\in A_1\cup A_2$,
\begin{alignat*}{2}
 - \lfloor(n_1+n_2-2)/{2}\rfloor-(m-n_1-n_2) &\le &s_{(D',\sigma_1)}(v) &\le m-n_1-n_2, \text{ and} \\
-(m-n_1-n_2) &\le{} &  s_{(D',\sigma_2)}(v) &\le    \lfloor(n_1+n_2-2)/{2}\rfloor +m-n_1-n_2.
\end{alignat*}
Let $D$ be the orientation of $G$ obtained from $D'$ by first orienting  all the edges between $A_2$ and $A_1$ in $F$ away from $A_2$,  then all the edges between $X$ and $A_1$ in $G$ away from $X$, and finally    edges of $G[X]$ such that   at most one edge  in $G[X]$ is oriented towards each vertex in $X$.  \medskip

To find such a bijection $\tau$, we next label all the edges in $E_1$ when $E_1\neq \emptyset$.  Let   $\tau_1: E_1   \to [m_1]$  be a bijection  such that   when $t=2$,   $\tau_1(x_1y_4)=1$ if $ y_4\in N(x_1)$ and $\tau_1(x_1x_2)=1$ if $y_4\notin N(x_1)$; and
 when $t=3$,  $\tau_1(x_1y_4)=1$ and $\tau_1(x_3y_4)=2$ if $y_4\in N(x_3)$,    $\tau_1(x_1y_4)=1$ and $\tau_1(x_3y_8)=2$ if   $y_4\notin N(x_3)$,  and    if $p:=e(G[X])\ge1$, then $\tau_1(E(G[X]))= \{3, \ldots, 2+p\}$. For each $u\in A_1$, let $s_{\tau_1}(u)$ denote the sum of labels on all edges incidents with $u$ in $E_1$ under $\tau_1$.  In the remaining   proof of the existence of $\tau$,  we shall   apply $\sigma_1$ to $A(D')$ when $n_1\le n_2$,  and $\sigma_2$ to $A(D')$ when $n_1>n_2$, that is, we shall apply  $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$  to two separately cases.   Hence when  $A_2\ne\emptyset$, we may  further assume that  $A_2: =\{v_1,v_2,\ldots, v_{n_2}\}$ such that  for each $i\in[2]$, \[s_{(D',\sigma_i)}(v_1)\le s_{(D',\sigma_i)}(v_2)\le \ldots\le s_{(D',\sigma_i)}(v_{n_2}).\]
For each  $i\in[n_2]$, let $e_i$ be the unique edge incident with $v_i$ in $F$.  Let $E_2:=\{e_i: i\in [n_2]\}$. Then $E_2=E(F)\setminus E_0$.  We finally label the edges in $E_0\cup E_2$ using integers in $\{m-n_1-n_2+1, \ldots, m\}$ by considering two separate  cases  $n_1\le n_2$ and $n_1> n_2$.\medskip

\medskip
Assume first that  $n_1\le n_2$.  Then  $n_2\ge n_1\ge 2$.  We shall apply $\sigma_1$ to $A(D')$.  To   label the edges in $E_2$, let $\tau_2:    E_2  \to \{m-n_1-n_2+1,\ldots, m- n_1\}$  be the bijection  such that  for each  $i\in[n_2]$,  $\tau_2(e_i)=m-n_1-i+1$.  Let $s_{\tau_2}(u)$ denote the sum of labels on all edges incidents with $u$ in $E_2$ under $\tau_2$ for each $u\in A_1$.
 To label the edges in $E_0$, we need to order the vertices in $A_1$. Let  $A_1: =\{u_1,u_2,\ldots, u_{n_1}\}$ such that
\[s_{(D',\,\sigma_1)}(u_1)+s_{\tau_1}(u_1)+s_{\tau_2}(u_1)\ge \cdots\ge  s_{(D',\,\sigma_1)}(u_{n_1})+s_{\tau_1}(u_{n_1})+s_{\tau_2}(u_{n_1}).\]
Finally, let   $\tau: A(D)\rightarrow [m]$ be the  bijection such that
 $\tau(e_{u_i})=m- i+1$ for each  $i\in [n_1]$, $\tau(e)=\sigma_1(e)$ for each $e\in E(H\setminus X)$,   $\tau(e)=\tau_1(e)$ for each $e\in E_1$,   and $\tau(e)=\tau_2(e)$ for each $e\in E_2$.
 Then   for all  $i\in[n_2]$,
\[ s_{(D,\tau)}(v_i)=s_{(D',\, \sigma_1)}(v_i)-\tau_2(e_i) \le (m-n_1-n_2)-(m-n_1-i+1)=-(n_2-i+1)<0,\]
and by the choice of $(D, \tau)$,
\[
\begin{split}
0>s_{(D,\tau)}(v_{n_2})>\cdots>s_{(D,\tau)}(v_1)&=s_{(D',\, \sigma_1)}(v_1)-\tau_2(e_1)\\
&\ge -\left\lfloor\frac{n_1+n_2-2}{2}\right\rfloor-(m-n_1-n_2)-(m-n_1)\\
&\ge -2(m-n_1)+1-\left\lfloor\frac{n_1-n_2}{2}\right\rfloor \\
&\ge -2(m-n_1)+1\\
 \end{split}
 \]
because $2\le n_1\le n_2$. This proves that $(D, \tau)$ satisfies ({\bf P2}).
Next for each $j\in[n_1]$, by the orientation of $D$ and the choice of $\tau_1, \tau_2$, we see that $s_{\tau_1}(u_j)\ge0$,  $s_{\tau_2}(u_j)\ge0$, and
\[\begin{split}
 s_{(D,\tau)}(u_j)&=s_{(D',\,\sigma_1)}(u_j)+s_{\tau_1}(u_j)+s_{\tau_2}(u_j)+\tau(e_{u_j}) \\
 &\ge s_{(D',\,\sigma_1)}(u_j)+\tau(e_{u_j})\\
 &\ge -\left\lfloor\frac{n_1+n_2-2}{2}\right\rfloor-(m-n_1-n_2)+(m-n_1+1) \\
 &\ge  -\left\lfloor\frac{n_1-n_2}{2}\right\rfloor+2\\
 &\geq2,
  \end{split}
 \]
because $n_1\le n_2$. Hence $s_{(D,\tau)}(u_1)>s_{(D,\tau)}(u_2)>\cdots>s_{(D,\tau)}(u_{n_1})\geq2$. This proves that $(D, \tau)$ satisfies ({\bf P1}).  To see  $(D, \tau)$ satisfies ({\bf P3}), for $x_i\in X$ and each $v\in N_F(x_i)$, $\tau(x_iv)\in   \{m-n_1+1, \ldots,m\}$ because $x_iv\in E_0$. When  $t=1$, then  $d(x_1)\ge 2$ and so $s_{(D,\tau)}(x_1)\le -(m+m-1)=-2m+1 <  s_{(D,\tau)}(v_1)$. When $t\geq2$, then for each $x_i\in X$,   $ d_F(x_i)\ge 3$  and  at most one edge in $G[X]$ is oriented towards $x_i$ in $D$, thus
\[s_{(D,\tau)}(x_i)\le -(m-n_1+1)-(m-n_1+2)-(m-n_1+3)+4=-3(m-n_1)-2 <s_{(D,\tau)}(v_1).\]
 Finally, when $t=2$,    we have
 \[
\begin{split}
s_{(D,\tau)}(x_2)+\tau(x_2y_4)&\le 4- \tau(x_2y_5)- \tau(x_2y_6)- \tau(x_2y_7) \\
 &\le   -(m-n_1+1) -(m-n_1+2)-(m-n_1+3)+4   \\
 &<s_{(D,\tau)}(v_{1}).
 \end{split}
 \]
  When $t=3$,
 we have
 \[
\begin{split}
s_{(D,\tau)}(x_2)+\tau(x_2y_4) +\tau(x_2y_8)&\le  4- \tau(x_2y_5)- \tau(x_2y_6)- \tau(x_2y_7)  \\
&\le   -(m-n_1+1) -(m-n_1+2)-(m-n_1+3)+4   \\
 &<s_{(D,\tau)}(v_{1}).
 \end{split}
 \]  This proves that $(D, \tau)$ satisfies ({\bf P3}). \medskip

Assume next that  $n_1> n_2$. We may assume that $n_2>0$ because ({\bf P2})  is  trivially true when $n_2=0$.   We shall apply $\sigma_2$ to $A(D')$.   To   label the edges in $E_2$, let $\tau_2:    E_2  \to \{m- n_2+1,\ldots, m \}$  be the bijection  such that  for each  $i\in[n_2]$,  $\tau_2(e_i)=m-i+1$.  Let $s_{\tau_2}(u)$ denote the sum of labels on all edges incidents with $u$ in $E_2$ under $\tau_2$ for $u\in A_1$.
  To label the edges in $E_0$, we need to order the vertices in $A_1$. Let  $A_1: =\{u_1,u_2,\ldots, u_{n_1}\}$ such that
\[s_{(D',\,\sigma_2)}(u_1)+s_{\tau_1}(u_1)+s_{\tau_2}(u_1)\ge \cdots\ge  s_{(D',\,\sigma_2)}(u_{n_1})+s_{\tau_1}(u_{n_1})+s_{\tau_2}(u_{n_1}).\]
Finally, let   $\tau: A(D)\rightarrow [m]$ be the  bijection such that
 $\tau(e_{u_i})=m- n_2-i+1$ for each  $i\in [n_1]$, $\tau(e)=\sigma_2(e)$ for each $e\in E(H\setminus X)$,   $\tau(e)=\tau_1(e)$ for each $e\in E_1$,   and $\tau(e)=\tau_2(e)$ for each $e\in E_2$.
 Then   for all  $i\in[n_2]$,
\[ s_{(D,\tau)}(v_i)=s_{(D',\,\sigma_2)}(v_i)-\tau_2(e_i) \le  \left\lfloor\frac{n_1+n_2-2}{2}\right\rfloor+(m-n_1-n_2)-(m- n_2+1)= -2 +\left\lfloor\frac{n_2-n_1}{2}\right\rfloor<0,\]
because $n_1>n_2$. By the choice of $(D, \tau)$,
\[
\begin{split}
0>s_{(D,\tau)}(v_{n_2})>\cdots>s_{(D,\tau)}(v_1)&=s_{(D',\,\sigma_2)}(v_1)-\tau_2(e_1)\\
&\ge -(m-n_1-n_2)-m\\
&\ge -2 m +n_1+n_2.  \\
 \end{split}
 \]
  This proves that $(D, \tau)$ satisfies ({\bf P2}).
Next for each $j\in[n_1]$, by the orientation of $D$ and the choice of $\tau_1, \tau_2$, we see that $s_{\tau_1}(u_j)\ge0$,  $s_{\tau_2}(u_j)\ge0$, and
\[\begin{split}
 s_{(D,\tau)}(u_j)&=s_{(D',\,\sigma_2)}(u_j)+s_{\tau_1}(u_j)+s_{\tau_2}(u_j)+\tau(e_{u_j}) \\
 &\ge s_{(D',\,\sigma_2)}(u_j)+\tau(e_{u_j})\\
 &\ge  -(m-n_1-n_2)+(m-n_2-j+1) \\
 &\ge  n_1-j+1 \\
 &\geq1.
  \end{split}
 \]
  Hence $s_{(D,\tau)}(u_1)>s_{(D,\tau)}(u_2)>\cdots>s_{(D,\tau)}(u_{n_1})\geq1$. This proves that $(D, \tau)$ satisfies ({\bf P1}).  When  $t=1$, then  $d(x_1)=n_1\ge 3$ and so $s_{(D,\tau)}(x_1)< - (m-n_2)-(m-n_2-1)
  \le-2m+n_1+n_2   \le s_{(D,\tau)}(v_1)$, so $(D, \tau)$ satisfies ({\bf P3}). To prove  $(D, \tau)$ satisfies ({\bf P3}) when $t\geq2$, since $m\ge 2n-5\ge 2n_1+2n_2-1$, we see that
  \[4-\sum_{j=1}^3(m-n_1-n_2+j)   = (-2m+n_1+n_2) - (m-2n_1-2n_2+2) < -2m+n_1+n_2  \le s_{(D,\tau)}(v_1).\]

   Then for each $x_i\in X$,   $ d_F(x_i)\ge 3$  and  at most one edge in $G[X]$ is oriented towards $x_i$ in $D$, thus  $s_{(D,\tau)}(x_i)\le -(m-n_1-n_2+1)-(m-n_1-n_2+2)-(m-n_1-n_2+3)+4 <s_{(D,\tau)}(v_1)$.    Finally, when $t=2$,  we have
 \[
\begin{split}
s_{(D,\tau)}(x_2)+\tau(x_2y_4)&\le 4- \tau(x_2y_5)- \tau(x_2y_6)- \tau(x_2y_7)   \\
&\le  -(m-n_1-n_2+1)  -(m-n_1-n_2+2) -(m-n_1-n_2+3)+4   \\
&<s_{(D,\tau)}(v_{1}).
 \end{split}
 \]
  When $t=3$,   we have
 \[
\begin{split}
s_{(D,\tau)}(x_2)+\tau(x_2y_4) +\tau(x_2y_8)&\le 4- \tau(x_2y_5)- \tau(x_2y_6)- \tau(x_2y_7)  \\
&\le  -(m-n_1-n_2+1)  -(m-n_1-n_2+2) -(m-n_1-n_2+3)+4   \\
&<s_{(D,\tau)}(v_{1}).
 \end{split}
 \]
Hence $(D, \tau)$ satisfies ({\bf P3}).  This completes the proof  that there exist  an  orientation $D$ of $G$ and a bijection $\tau:A(D)\rightarrow [m]$ such that $(D, \tau)$ satisfies ({\bf P1}), ({\bf P2}) and ({\bf P3}).  \medskip

Since $(D, \tau)$ satisfies  ({\bf P1}), ({\bf P2}) and ({\bf P3}), we see that  $(D, \tau)$ is an antimagic orientation of $G$ if $s_{(D,\tau)}(x_1), \ldots,  s_{(D,\tau)}(x_t)$ are pairwise distinct. We may assume that $s_{(D,\tau)}(x_i)=s_{(D,\tau)}(x_j)$ for some $i, j\in [t]$ with $i\ne j$. Then $t\ge2$ and $E_1\neq \emptyset$. Let $s_i:=s_{(D, \tau)}(x_i)$ for  each $i\in[t]$. Next we will find an antimagic orientation   of $G$ from $(D, \tau)$ by either reversing the direction of an edge in $D[X]$  or strategically swapping the labels on some edges in $E_0\cup E_1$. \medskip

We first  consider the case that $y_4$ is complete to $X$ in $G$. By the choice of $\tau_1$ and $\tau$, we see that $\tau(x_1y_4)=1$,  and $\tau(x_3y_4)=2$ when $t=3$. Let $a:=\tau(x_2y_4)$.
For $i, j\in[t]$ with $i<j$, let $\tau_{i, j}:A(D)\to [m]$ be the bijection obtained  from $\tau$ by letting $\tau_{i, j}(x_iy_4)=\tau(x_jx_4)$, $\tau_{i, j}(x_jy_4)=\tau(x_ix_4)$ and $\tau_{i, j}(e)=\tau(e)$ for all $e\in E(G)\setminus\{x_iy_4,x_jy_4\}$. Then for all $v\in V(G)\setminus \{x_i, x_j\}$, $s_{(D,\tau_{i,j})}(v)=s_{(D,\tau)}(v)$, and so  $(D,\tau_{i,j})$ satisfies ({\bf P1}) and ({\bf P2}).   By ({\bf P3}),  $ s_2+a  <s_{(D,\tau)}(v_1) =s_{(D,\tau_{i,j})}(v_1) $.
When $t=2$,  we have $s_1=s_2$.   Then $(D,\tau_{1,2})$ is an antimagic orientation of $G$, because $(D,\tau_{1,2})$ satisfies ({\bf P1}) and ({\bf P2}),   $s_{(D,\tau_{1,2})}(x_2) =s_2+a-1 < s_{(D,\tau_{1,2})}(v_{1})$, and
   \[
\begin{split}
s_{(D,\tau_{1,2})}(x_1)=s_1-(a-1)<s_1+a-1=s_2+a-1=s_{(D,\tau_{1,2})}(x_2)<s_2+a <   s_{(D, \tau_{1,2})}(v_{1}).
 \end{split}
 \]
When $t=3$, since $x_1y_4, x_3y_4\in E_1$, so $a\ge 3$.
If $s_1=s_2\ge s_3$,  or $s_1=s_3<s_2$, or $s_2=s_3<s_1$ and $s_1\neq s_2+a-2$, then  $(D,\tau_{2,3})$ is an antimagic orientation of $G$, because  $(D,\tau_{2,3})$ satisfies ({\bf P1}) and ({\bf P2}),      $s_{(D,\tau_{2,3})}(x_2)=s_2+a-2 < s_{(D,\tau_{2,3})}(v_1)$,  and
  \[
\begin{split}
s_{(D, \tau_{2,3})}(x_3)=s_3-(a-2)<s_1=s_{(D,\tau_{2,3})}(x_1)\ne s_2+a-2= s_{(D,\tau_{2,3})}(x_2) < s_{(D,\tau_{2,3})}(v_1).
 \end{split}
 \]
Next, if  $s_1= s_2<s_3$,  or $s_1= s_3>s_2$ and $s_2\neq s_1-1$, then $(D,\tau_{1,3})$ is an antimagic orientation of $G$, because  $(D,\tau_{1,3})$ satisfies ({\bf P1}) and ({\bf P2}),
$s_{(D, \tau_{1,3})}(x_1)= s_1-1< s_{(D,\tau_{1,3})}(v_{1})$, $s_{(D, \tau_{1,3})}(x_2)= s_2$, $s_{(D,\tau_{1,3})}(x_3)= s_3+1$, and so   $s_{(D, \tau_{1,3})}(x_1), s_{(D, \tau_{1,3})}(x_2), s_{(D, \tau_{1,3})}(x_3)$ are pairwise distinct.  Finally, if $s_2=s_3>s_1$, or $s_2=s_3<s_1$ and $s_1= s_2+a-2$, or
 $s_1= s_3>s_2$ and $s_2= s_1-1$,  then  $(D,\tau_{1,2})$ is an antimagic orientation of $G$, because  $(D,\tau_{1,2})$ satisfies ({\bf P1}) and ({\bf P2}), $a\ge 3$,          $s_{(D, \tau_{1,2})}(x_1)= s_1 -(a-1)$, $s_{(D, \tau_{1,2})}(x_2)= s_2+(a-1)< s_{(D,\tau_{1,2})}(v_1)$,   $s_{(D, \tau_{1,2})}(x_3)= s_3$, and so   $s_{(D, \tau_{1,2})}(x_1), s_{(D, \tau_{1,2})}(x_2), s_{(D, \tau_{1,2})}(x_3)$ are pairwise distinct. This completes the proof of the case that $y_4$ is complete to $X$ in $G$.  \medskip

We next   consider the case that $y_4$ is not complete to $X$ in $G$.
Assume first that   $t=2$. Then    $s_1= s_2$ and  $y_4\notin N(x_1)$. Thus     $x_1x_2\in E(G)$, and  $\tau(x_1x_2)=1$ by the choice of $\tau_1$ and $\tau$. We may assume that the edge $x_1x_2$ is oriented away from $x_1$ in $D$.  Let $D^*$ be obtained from $D$ by    reorienting  the edge $x_1x_2$  towards $x_1$. Then  for all $v\in A_1\cup A_2$, $s_{(D^*,\tau)}(v)=s_{(D,\tau)}(v)$,   and
\[s_{(D^*,\tau)}(x_2)=s_2-2<s_1+2=s_{(D^*,\tau)}(x_1) =s_2+2  <s_{(D,\tau)}(v_1).\]
  Hence  $(D^*,\tau)$ is an antimagic orientation of $G$.

  Assume next that   $t=3$. Then  $y_4\notin N(x_3)$ and $x_3y_8\in E(G)$.  By the choice of $\tau_1$ and $\tau$,  we have $\tau(x_1y_4)=1$   and $\tau(x_3y_8)=2$.
Let $a:=\tau(x_2y_4)$ and $b:=\tau(x_2y_8)$. Then $a,b\ge 3$ and $a,b\in \{m-n+4,\ldots, m\}$ are distinct because $x_2y_4, x_2y_8\in E_0$. Note that   $b-2a\le m-2(m-n +4)=-m+2n -8<   -3$ and $a-2b< -3$.
For each $i \in[2]$, let $\tau_{i, i+1}:A(D)\to [m]$ be the bijection obtained  from $\tau$ by letting $\tau_{i, i+1}(x_iy_{4i})=\tau(x_{i+1}x_{4i})$, $\tau_{i, i+1}(x_{i+1}y_{4i})=\tau(x_ix_{4i})$ and $\tau_{i, i+1}(e)=\tau(e)$ for all $e\in E(G)\setminus\{x_iy_{4i},x_{i+1}y_{4i}\}$.  Then for all $v\in V(G)\setminus \{x_i, x_{i+1}\}$, $s_{(D,\tau_{i,i+1})}(v)=s_{(D,\tau)}(v)$, and so  $(D,\tau_{i,i+1})$ satisfies ({\bf P1}) and ({\bf P2}).   By ({\bf P3}),  $ s_2+a +b <s_{(D,\tau)}(v_1)=s_{(D,\tau_{i, i+1})}(v_1) $.   If  $s_2=s_3\ge s_1$,   or  $s_1=s_2< s_3$ and  $s_3\ne s_2+a-1$, or   $s_1=s_3>s_2$ and $s_2+a-1$ is  neither $s_3$  nor  $s_1-(a-1)$, then $(D, \tau_{1,2})$ is an antimagic orientation of $G$, because  $(D,\tau_{1,2})$ satisfies ({\bf P1}) and ({\bf P2}),          $s_{(D, \tau_{1,2})}(x_1)= s_1 -(a-1)$, $s_{(D, \tau_{1,2})}(x_2)= s_2+(a-1)<s_2+a+b<s_{(D,\tau_{1,2})}(v_1)$,   $s_{(D, \tau_{1,2})}(x_3)= s_3$, and so   $s_{(D, \tau_{1,2})}(x_1), s_{(D, \tau_{1,2})}(x_2), s_{(D, \tau_{1,2})}(x_3)$ are pairwise distinct.
Next, if  $s_1=s_2>s_3$, or $s_1=s_3<s_2$, or $s_2=s_3<s_1$ and $s_1\ne s_2+b-2$,
then $(D, \tau_{2,3})$ is an antimagic orientation of $G$, because  $(D,\tau_{2,3})$ satisfies ({\bf P1}) and ({\bf P2}),          $s_{(D, \tau_{2,3})}(x_1)= s_1$, $s_{(D, \tau_{2,3})}(x_2)= s_2+(b-2)<s_2+a+b<s_{(D,\tau)}(v_{1})=s_{(D,\tau_{2,3})}(v_1)$,   $s_{(D, \tau_{2,3})}(x_3)= s_3-(b-2)$, and so   $s_{(D, \tau_{2,3})}(x_1), s_{(D, \tau_{2,3})}(x_2), s_{(D, \tau_{2,3})}(x_3)$ are pairwise distinct.  \medskip

We now consider the cases that
   $s_1=s_2 < s_3$ and $s_3=s_2+ a-1$, or   $s_2=s_3<s_1$ and $s_1= s_2+b-2$, or   $s_1=s_3>s_2$, $s_2+a-1 \in\{s_3, s_1-(a-1)\}$ and $b\neq a+1$.
   Let $\tau^*:A(D)\to [m]$ be the bijection obtained from $\tau$  by  letting $\tau^*(x_1y_4)=a$,   $\tau^*(x_2y_4)=1$, $\tau^*(x_2y_8)=2$,    $\tau^*(x_3y_8)=b$ and  $\tau^*(e)= \tau(e)$ for all $e\in E(G)\setminus \{x_1y_4, x_2y_4, x_2y_8, x_3y_8\}$. Then for all $v\in V(G)\setminus X$, $s_{(D,\tau^*)}(v)=s_{(D,\tau)}(v)$, and so  $(D,\tau^*)$ satisfies ({\bf P1}) and ({\bf P2}).   By ({\bf P3}),  $ s_2+a +b <s_{(D,\tau)}(v_1)=s_{(D,\tau^*)}(v_1) $.   Note that  $s_{(D, \tau^*)}(x_1)= s_1-(a-1)$, $s_{(D, \tau^*)}(x_2)=s_2+(a-1)+(b-2)< s_{(D,\tau^*)}(v_1)$,  $s_{(D,\tau^*)}(x_3)= s_3-(b-2)$, and so
   $s_{(D, \tau^*)}(x_1), s_{(D, \tau^*)}(x_2), s_{(D, \tau^*)}(x_3)$ are pairwise distinct by the assumption and the fact that $a\ge 3$, $b\ge 3$, $b-2a< -3$ and $a-2b<-3$.   \medskip

It remains to consider the case that   $s_1=s_3>s_2$,  $s_2+a-1 \in\{s_1, s_1-(a-1)\}$ and $b= a+1$. By the choice of $\tau$ and ({\bf P1}),
\[s_{(D, \tau)}(u_1)- \tau(e_{u_1})\ge s_{(D, \tau)}(u_2) -\tau(e_{u_2})\ge\cdots\ge s_{(D, \tau)}(u_{n_1}) -\tau(e_{u_{n_1}}).\]  Since $b=a+1$, $a=\tau(e_{y_4})$ and $b=\tau(e_{y_8})$,  we see that    $s_{(D, \tau)}(y_4)- a\le s_{(D, \tau)}(y_8)- b$, that is, $s_{(D, \tau)}(y_4)\le s_{(D, \tau)}(y_8)- 1$. We may assume that $y_8=u_{\ell}$ and $y_4=u_{\ell+1}$ for some $\ell\in [n_1-1]$.  We may further assume that $s_{(D, \tau)}(y_4)<  s_{(D, \tau)}(y_8)- 1$  (else,    let   $u_\ell:=y_4$,  $u_{\ell+1}:=y_8$, $\tau(x_2y_4)=b$ and $\tau(x_2y_8)=a$, we have  $s_1=s_3>s_2$  but  $\tau(x_2y_8)\ne \tau(x_2y_4)+1$. By the previous  cases, we see that $G$ admits an antimagic orientation).
Assume that $s_{(D, \tau)}(y_4)\le  s_{(D, \tau)}(y_8)-3$. Let $\tau^*:A(D)\to [m]$ be the bijection obtained from $\tau$  by  letting $\tau^*(x_1y_4)=2$,   $\tau^*(x_3y_8)=1$,  and  $\tau^*(e)= \tau(e)$ for all $e\in E(G)\setminus \{x_1y_4, x_3y_8\}$.
Then for all $v\in V(G)\setminus \{x_1, x_3, y_4, y_8\}$, $s_{(D,\tau^*)}(v)=s_{(D,\tau)}(v)$, and so  $(D,\tau^*)$ satisfies  ({\bf P2}).    Note that   $s_{(D, \tau^*)}(y_4)=s_{(D,\tau)}(y_4)+1 \le  (s_{(D,\tau)}(y_8)-3)+1< s_{(D,\tau)}(y_8)-1=s_{(D,\tau^*)}(y_8)$.
It follows that \[s_{(D,\tau^*)}(u_1)>\cdots>s_{(D,\tau^*)}(u_{\ell-1})>s_{(D,\tau^*)}(y_8)>s_{(D,\tau^*)}(y_4)>s_{(D,\tau^*)}(u_{\ell+2})>\cdots>s_{(D,\tau^*)}(u_{n_1}),\]
    and $s_{(D,\tau^*)}(x_1)=s_1-1$, $s_{(D,\tau^*)}(x_2)=s_2$, $s_{(D,\tau^*)}(x_3)=s_1+1< s_2+a+b<s_{(D,\tau^*)}(v_1)$ are pairwise distinct because $s_2+a-1 \in\{s_1, s_1-(a-1)\}$. Hence $(D, \tau^*)$ is an antimagic orientation of $G$.
Finally, we may assume that  $s_{(D, \tau)}(y_4)=  s_{(D, \tau)}(y_8)-2$.    Let $\tau^*:A(D)\to [m]$ be the bijection obtained from $\tau$  by    letting $\tau^*(x_1y_4)=2$,  $\tau^*(x_3y_8)=1$, $\tau^*(x_2y_4)=b=a+1$,  $\tau^*(x_2y_8)=a$,  and  $\tau^*(e)= \tau(e)$ for all $e\in E(G)\setminus \{x_1y_4, x_2y_4, x_2y_8, x_3y_8\}$.
Then for all $v\in V(G)\setminus \{x_1,x_2, x_3, y_4, y_8\}$, $s_{(D,\tau^*)}(v)=s_{(D,\tau)}(v)$, and so  $(D,\tau^*)$ satisfies  ({\bf P2}).    Note that   $s_{(D, \tau^*)}(y_4)=s_{(D,\tau)}(y_4)+(b+2)-(a+1)=  (s_{(D,\tau)}(y_8)-2)+2= s_{(D,\tau)}(y_8)$, and $s_{(D,\tau^*)}(y_8)=s_{(D,\tau)}(y_8)+(a+1)-(b+2)=s_{(D,\tau)}(y_8)-2=s_{(D,\tau)}(y_4)$.
It follows that \[s_{(D,\tau^*)}(u_1)>\cdots>s_{(D,\tau^*)}(u_{\ell-1})>s_{(D,\tau^*)}(y_4)>s_{(D,\tau^*)}(y_8)>s_{(D,\tau^*)}(u_{\ell+2})>\cdots>s_{(D,\tau^*)}(u_{n_1}),\]
    and $s_{(D,\tau^*)}(x_1)=s_1-1$, $s_{(D,\tau^*)}(x_2)=s_2$, $s_{(D,\tau^*)}(x_3)=s_1+1< s_2+a+b<s_{(D,\tau^*)}(v_1)$ are pairwise distinct because $s_2+a-1 \in\{s_1, s_1-(a-1)\}$. Hence $(D, \tau^*)$ is an antimagic orientation of $G$.  \medskip

This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{mainresult}. \hfill $\blacksquare$\bigskip

\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{alpha}}\label{alpha34}
   Let $G$  be a connected graph with $\alpha:=\alpha(G)\le4$. By Theorem~\ref{dominating} and the fact that $G$  is connected, Theorem \ref{alpha}(i) holds. To prove Theorem \ref{alpha}(ii,iii), let  $n:=|G|$,  $m:=e(G)$,  and     $S:=\{u_1,  \ldots,  u_\alpha\}$ be a maximum independent set in $G$ such that $H_S$ has the minimum number of components, where $H_S$ is the bipartite subgraph of $G$ with bipartition $\{S, \overline S\}$ and $E(H_S)$ consisting of all edges between $S$ and  $\overline S:=V(G)\setminus S$ in $G$.  Then every vertex in $\overline S$ is adjacent to at least one vertex in $S$, and each component of $H_S$ contains at least one vertex of $S$, because $\alpha(G)=\alpha$.   By Corollary~\ref{radius2},  we may   assume that  $r(G)\ge3$. Then no vertex in $\overline S$ is complete to $S$ in $G$.
  We next show that\medskip

\noindent ($\ast$) every component of $H_S$ contains at least two vertices in $S$. \medskip

\medskip\noindent {\bf Proof.}~~ Suppose for a contradiction that    $H_1$ is a component of $H_S$ with  $|V(H_1)\cap S|=1$, say $V(H_1)\cap S=\{u_{\alpha}\}$.  Then $H_S$ is disconnected. Since $G$ is connected, there must exist $x\in N(u_\alpha)$ and $x’ \in \bigcup_{i=1}^{\alpha-1} N(u_i)$ such that $xx’\in E(G)$. Note that $x$ is anti-complete to $\{ u_1,\ldots,u_{\alpha-1}\}$ in $G$.  But then $S’:=\{x,u_1,\ldots,u_{\alpha-1}\}$ is a maximum independent set of $G$ such that $H_{S’}$ has fewer components than $H_S$, contrary to the choice of $S$.  \hfill $\blacksquare$\medskip

  To prove Theorem~\ref{alpha}(ii), assume $\alpha=3$ and  $|G|\ge 13$. Then  $\overline{G}$ is $K_4$-free. By Tur\'an's Theorem, $e(\overline{G})\le n^2/3$. Hence $m \ge {n\choose 2}-n^2/3   >2n-5$ because $n\ge 13$. Since every component of $H_S$ contains at least two vertices in $S$ and $r(G)\ge3$, we see that $H_S$ is connected. This, together with the fact that $H_S$ is bipartite,   implies that    there must exist distinct vertices $  y_1, y_2 \in \overline S$   such that   $y_1$ is complete to, say  $\{u_1, u_2\}$, and $y_2$ is complete to, say  $\{u_2, u_3\}$ in $H_S$. Then $y_1\ne y_2$ because   $r(G)\ge3$.  By Corollary~\ref{main}(ii)  applied to $G$ with $X=S$, $G$ admits an antimagic orientation.\medskip

  To prove Theorem~\ref{alpha}(iii), assume  $\alpha =4$ and $\delta(G)\ge11$.  Then $n\ge 12$ and $m >5n$. Since every component of $H_S$ contains at least two vertices in $S$, we see that $H_S$ has at most two components. We first consider the case that $H_S$ is connected. Assume first there exists a vertex $x_1\in \overline S$ such that $x_1$ is adjacent to  three vertices of $S$, say $u_1,u_2,u_3$. Then  $x_1u_4\notin E(G)$ because $r(G)\ge3$. Let $x_2\in N(u_4)\cap \big(N(u_1)\cup N(u_2)\cup N(u_3)\big)$, say $x_2\in N(u_4)\cap N(u_3)$. This is possible because $H_S$ is connected. Then $S\subseteq N(x_1)\cup N( x_2)$  and for all $v\in V(G)\setminus\{x_1, x_2\}$, we have $d(v, \{x_1, x_2\})\le2$.  Note that $\delta(G)\ge11$.

  By Theorem \ref{mainresult}(\ref{qtau2}) applied to $G$ with $X:=\{x_1,x_2\}$ and $y_4=u_3$,    $G$ admits an antimagic orientation. Next, assume that  no vertex in $\overline S$ is adjacent to three vertices in $S$. Then there exist $x_1,x_2,x_3\in \overline S$ such that  for each $i\in [3]$, $x_i$ is adjacent to, say $\{u_i,u_{i+1}\}$ (and so anti-complete to $S\setminus \{u_i,u_{i+1}\}$) in $G$. Then $S\subseteq N(x_1)\cup N( x_2)\cup N(x_3)$ and for all $v\in V(G)\setminus\{x_1, x_2\}$, we have $d(v, \{x_1, x_2, x_3\})\le2$.

   Since $\delta(G)\ge11$,
 by Theorem \ref{mainresult}(\ref{qtau3}) applied to $G$ with $X=\{x_1,x_2,x_3\}$, $y_4=u_2$ and  $y_8=u_3$,   $G$ admits an  antimagic orientation.\medskip

It remains to consider the case that $H_S$ is disconnected. By ($\ast$),   $H_S$ has exactly two components.  We may further assume that  for every maximum independent set  $S'$ of  $G$, $H_{S'}$ is disconnected and  if $H_{S'}$ has exactly two components,  then   each component of $H_{S'}$ contains exactly two vertices of $S'$ by ($\ast$). Let $H_1, H_2$ be the   components of $H_S$. By ($\ast$),  we may   assume that $u_1,u_2\in V(H_1)$ and $u_3,u_4\in V(H_2)$.   Since $G$ is connected, there must exist $x_1\in N(u_1)\cup N(u_2)$ and $x_2\in N(u_3)\cup N(u_4)$ such that $x_1x_2\in E(G)$. Then $x_1$ is complete to $\{u_1,u_2\}$ and $x_2$ is complete to $\{u_3,u_4\}$ in $G$, else, say  $x_1u_1\notin E(G)$, then $S’:=\{x_1,u_1,u_3,u_4\}$ is a maximum independent set of $G$ such that either $H_{S’}$ is connected,  this contradicts the choice of $S$ or $H_{S’}$ has exactly two components with one component  containing only one vertex $u_1$ in $S’$, contradiction again. Thus $S\subseteq N(x_1)\cup N( x_2)$  and for all $v\in V(G)\setminus\{x_1, x_2\}$, we have $d(v, \{x_1, x_2\})\le2$.
By Theorem \ref{mainresult}(\ref{qtau2}) applied to $G$ with $X=\{x_1,x_2\}$ and $x_1x_2\in E(G)$, $G$ admits an antimagic orientation. \medskip

    This completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{alpha}.   \hfill $\blacksquare$ \medskip