On Tinhofer’s Linear Programming Approach to Isomorphism Testing

  • V. Arvind
  • Johannes KöblerEmail author
  • Gaurav Rattan
  • Oleg Verbitsky
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9235)


Exploring a linear programming approach to Graph Isomorphism, Tinhofer (1991) defined the notion of compact graphs: A graph is compact if the polytope of its fractional automorphisms is integral. Tinhofer noted that isomorphism testing for compact graphs can be done quite efficiently by linear programming. However, the problem of characterizing and recognizing compact graphs in polynomial time remains an open question. In this paper we make new progress in our understanding of compact graphs. Our results are summarized below:
  • We show that all graphs G which are distinguishable from any non-isomorphic graph by the classical color-refinement procedure are compact. In other words, the applicability range for Tinhofer’s linear programming approach to isomorphism testing is at least as large as for the combinatorial approach based on color refinement.

  • Exploring the relationship between color refinement and compactness further, we study related combinatorial and algebraic graph properties introduced by Tinhofer and Godsil. We show that the corresponding classes of graphs form a hierarchy and we prove that recognizing each of these graph classes is P-hard. In particular, this gives a first complexity lower bound for recognizing compact graphs.


Convex Combination Permutation Matrix Stochastic Matrix Color Class Graph Class 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Arvind, V., Köbler, J., Rattan, G., Verbitsky, O.: Graph isomorphism, color refinement, and compactness. ECCC TR15-032 (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arvind, V., Köbler, J., Rattan, G., Verbitsky, O.: On the power of color refinement. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Symposium on Fundamentals of Computation Theory (FCT), Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer (2015, to appear)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atserias, A., Maneva, E.N.: Sherali-Adams relaxations and indistinguishability in counting logics. SIAM J. Comput. 42(1), 112–137 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Babai, L., Erdös, P., Selkow, S.M.: Random graph isomorphism. SIAM J. Comput. 9(3), 628–635 (1980)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brualdi, R.A.: Some applications of doubly stochastic matrices. Linear Algebra Appl. 107, 77–100 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brualdi, R.A.: Combinatorial Matrix Classes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Evdokimov, S., Karpinski, M., Ponomarenko, I.N.: Compact cellular algebras and permutation groups. Discrete Math. 197–198, 247–267 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Evdokimov, S., Ponomarenko, I.N., Tinhofer, G.: Forestal algebras and algebraic forests (on a new class of weakly compact graphs). Discrete Math. 225(1–3), 149–172 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Godsil, C.: Compact graphs and equitable partitions. Linear Algebra Appl. 255(13), 259–266 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grohe, M.: Equivalence in finite-variable logics is complete for polynomial time. Combinatorica 19(4), 507–532 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grohe, M., Otto, M.: Pebble games and linear equations. In: Computer Science Logic (CSL 2012), vol. 16. LIPIcs, pp. 289–304 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Immerman, N., Lander, E.: Describing graphs: a first-order approach to graph canonization. In: Selman, A.L. (ed.) Complexity Theory Retrospective, pp. 59–81. Springer, New York (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kiefer, S., Schweitzer, P., Selman, E.: Graphs identified by logics with counting. In: Italiano, G.F., et al. (eds.) MFCS 2015, Part I. LNCS, vol. 9234, pp. 319–330. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Malkin, P.N.: Sherali-Adams relaxations of graph isomorphism polytopes. Discrete Optim. 12, 73–97 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ramana, M.V., Scheinerman, E.R., Ullman, D.: Fractional isomorphism of graphs. Discrete Math. 132(1–3), 247–265 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schreck, H., Tinhofer, G.: A note on certain subpolytopes of the assignment polytope associated with circulant graphs. Linear Algebra Appl. 111, 125–134 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tinhofer, G.: Graph isomorphism and theorems of Birkhoff type. Computing 36, 285–300 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tinhofer, G.: Strong tree-cographs are Birkhoff graphs. Discrete Appl. Math. 22(3), 275–288 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tinhofer, G.: A note on compact graphs. Discrete Appl. Math. 30(2–3), 253–264 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tinhofer, G., Klin, M.: Algebraic combinatorics in mathematical chemistry. Methods and algorithms III. Graph invariants and stabilization methods. Technical report TUM-M9902, Technische Universität München (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang, P., Li, J.S.: On compact graphs. Acta Math. Sinica 21(5), 1087–1092 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Arvind
    • 1
  • Johannes Köbler
    • 2
    Email author
  • Gaurav Rattan
    • 1
  • Oleg Verbitsky
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.The Institute of Mathematical SciencesChennaiIndia
  2. 2.Institut für InformatikHumboldt Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.On leave from the Institute for Applied Problems of Mechanics and MathematicsLvivUkraine

Personalised recommendations