Distributed Testing of Graph Isomorphism in the CONGEST Model

Authors Reut Levi , Moti Medina

Thumbnail PDF


  • Filesize: 0.68 MB
  • 24 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Reut Levi
  • Efi Arazi School of Computer Science, The Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, Israel
Moti Medina
  • School of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel

Cite AsGet BibTex

Reut Levi and Moti Medina. Distributed Testing of Graph Isomorphism in the CONGEST Model. In Approximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Techniques (APPROX/RANDOM 2020). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 176, pp. 19:1-19:24, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2020)


In this paper we study the problem of testing graph isomorphism (GI) in the CONGEST distributed model. In this setting we test whether the distributive network, G_U, is isomorphic to G_K which is given as an input to all the nodes in the network, or alternatively, only to a single node. We first consider the decision variant of the problem in which the algorithm should distinguish the case where G_U and G_K are isomorphic from the case where G_U and G_K are not isomorphic. Specifically, if G_U and G_K are not isomorphic then w.h.p. at least one node should output reject and otherwise all nodes should output accept . We provide a randomized algorithm with O(n) rounds for the setting in which G_K is given only to a single node. We prove that for this setting the number of rounds of any deterministic algorithm is Ω̃(n²) rounds, where n denotes the number of nodes, which implies a separation between the randomized and the deterministic complexities of deciding GI . Our algorithm can be adapted to the semi-streaming model, where a single pass is performed and Õ(n) bits of space are used. We then consider the property testing variant of the problem, where the algorithm is only required to distinguish the case that G_U and G_K are isomorphic from the case that G_U and G_K are far from being isomorphic (according to some predetermined distance measure). We show that every (possibly randomized) algorithm, requires Ω(D) rounds, where D denotes the diameter of the network. This lower bound holds even if all the nodes are given G_K as an input, and even if the message size is unbounded. We provide a randomized algorithm with an almost matching round complexity of O(D+(ε^{-1}log n)²) rounds that is suitable for dense graphs (namely, graphs with Ω(n²) edges). We also show that with the same number of rounds it is possible that each node outputs its mapping according to a bijection which is an approximate isomorphism. We conclude with simple simulation arguments that allow us to adapt centralized property testing algorithms and obtain essentially tight algorithms with round complexity Õ(D) for special families of sparse graphs.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Distributed algorithms
  • Theory of computation → Graph algorithms analysis
  • the CONGEST model
  • graph isomorphism
  • distributed property testing
  • distributed decision
  • graph algorithms


  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    PDF Downloads


  1. Amir Abboud, Keren Censor-Hillel, Seri Khoury, and Christoph Lenzen. Fooling views: A new lower bound technique for distributed computations under congestion. arXiv preprint, 2017. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1711.01623.
  2. Amir Abboud, Keren Censor-Hillel, Seri Khoury, and Ami Paz. Smaller cuts, higher lower bounds. CoRR, abs/1901.01630, 2019. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1901.01630.
  3. Jasine Babu, Areej Khoury, and Ilan Newman. Every property of outerplanar graphs is testable. In Approximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Techniques, APPROX/RANDOM 2016, September 7-9, 2016, Paris, France, volume 60 of LIPIcs, pages 21:1-21:19. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2016. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.APPROX-RANDOM.2016.21.
  4. Tugkan Batu, Eldar Fischer, Lance Fortnow, Ravi Kumar, Ronitt Rubinfeld, and Patrick White. Testing random variables for independence and identity. In Proceedings 42nd IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 442-451. IEEE, 2001. Google Scholar
  5. Tuğkan Batu, Lance Fortnow, Ronitt Rubinfeld, Warren D Smith, and Patrick White. Testing closeness of discrete distributions. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 60(1):1-25, 2013. Google Scholar
  6. Matthias Bonne and Keren Censor-Hillel. Distributed detection of cliques in dynamic networks. In 46th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, ICALP 2019, July 9-12, 2019, Patras, Greece, pages 132:1-132:15, 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2019.132.
  7. Keren Censor-Hillel, Eldar Fischer, Gregory Schwartzman, and Yadu Vasudev. Fast distributed algorithms for testing graph properties. Distributed Computing, 32(1):41-57, 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00446-018-0324-8.
  8. Yi-Jun Chang, Seth Pettie, and Hengjie Zhang. Distributed triangle detection via expander decomposition. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 821-840. SIAM, 2019. Google Scholar
  9. Lin Chen. Parallel graph isomorphism detection with identification matrices. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Parallel Architectures, Algorithms and Networks (ISPAN), pages 105-112. IEEE, 1994. Google Scholar
  10. Lin Chen. Graph isomorphism and identification matrices: Parallel algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 7(3):308-319, 1996. Google Scholar
  11. Artur Czumaj and Christian Konrad. Detecting cliques in congest networks. Distributed Computing, pages 1-11, 2019. Google Scholar
  12. Talya Eden, Nimrod Fiat, Orr Fischer, Fabian Kuhn, and Rotem Oshman. Sublinear-time distributed algorithms for detecting small cliques and even cycles. In 33rd International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC 2019). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2019. Google Scholar
  13. Guy Even, Orr Fischer, Pierre Fraigniaud, Tzlil Gonen, Reut Levi, Moti Medina, Pedro Montealegre, Dennis Olivetti, Rotem Oshman, Ivan Rapaport, and Ioan Todinca. Three notes on distributed property testing. In Proceedings of the 41st International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC), pages 15:1-15:30, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.DISC.2017.15.
  14. Guy Even, Reut Levi, and Moti Medina. Faster and simpler distributed algorithms for testing and correcting graph properties in the congest-model. CoRR, abs/1705.04898, 2017. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1705.04898.
  15. Joan Feigenbauma, Sampath Kannanb, Andrew McGregorb, Siddharth Surib, and Jian Zhanga. On graph problems in a semi-streaming model. Theoretical Computer Science, 348:207-216, 2005. Google Scholar
  16. Hendrik Fichtenberger and Yadu Vasudev. Distributed testing of conductance. arXiv preprint, 2017. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1705.08174.
  17. Eldar Fischer and Arie Matsliah. Testing graph isomorphism. SIAM Journal on Computing, 38(1):207-225, 2008. Google Scholar
  18. Orr Fischer, Shay Gershtein, and Rotem Oshman. On the multiparty communication complexity of testing triangle-freeness. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), pages 111-120. ACM, 2017. Google Scholar
  19. Orr Fischer, Tzlil Gonen, Fabian Kuhn, and Rotem Oshman. Possibilities and impossibilities for distributed subgraph detection. In Proceedings of the 30th on Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures, pages 153-162, 2018. Google Scholar
  20. Orr Fischer, Tzlil Gonen, and Rotem Oshman. Distributed property testing for subgraph-freeness revisited. CoRR, abs/1705.04033, 2017. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1705.04033.
  21. Pierre Fraigniaud, Pedro Montealegre, Dennis Olivetti, Ivan Rapaport, and Ioan Todinca. Distributed subgraph detection. CoRR, abs/1706.03996, 2017. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03996.
  22. Pierre Fraigniaud and Dennis Olivetti. Distributed detection of cycles. ACM Transactions on Parallel Computing (TOPC), 6(3):1-20, 2019. Google Scholar
  23. Pierre Fraigniaud, Ivan Rapaport, Ville Salo, and Ioan Todinca. Distributed testing of excluded subgraphs. In Proceedings of the 30th International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC), volume 9888 of LNCS, pages 342-356. Springer, 2016. Google Scholar
  24. Hillel Gazit and J Reif. A randomized parallel algorithm for planar graph isomorphism. In Proceedings of the second annual ACM symposium on Parallel algorithms and architectures, pages 210-219, 1990. Google Scholar
  25. Oded Goldreich. Testing isomorphism in the bounded-degree graph model. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC), 26:102, 2019. URL: https://eccc.weizmann.ac.il/report/2019/102.
  26. Oded Goldreich, Shari Goldwasser, and Dana Ron. Property testing and its connection to learning and approximation. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 45(4):653-750, 1998. Google Scholar
  27. Oded Goldreich and Dana Ron. Property testing in bounded degree graphs. Algorithmica, 32(2):302-343, 2002. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00453-001-0078-7.
  28. Oded Goldreich and Dana Ron. On testing expansion in bounded-degree graphs. In Studies in Complexity and Cryptography. Miscellanea on the Interplay between Randomness and Computation, pages 68-75. Springer, 2011. Google Scholar
  29. Martin Grohe and Oleg Verbitsky. Testing graph isomorphism in parallel by playing a game. In International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, pages 3-14. Springer, 2006. Google Scholar
  30. John E Hopcroft and Jin-Kue Wong. Linear time algorithm for isomorphism of planar graphs (preliminary report). In Proceedings of the sixth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 172-184. ACM, 1974. Google Scholar
  31. Taisuke Izumi and François Le Gall. Triangle finding and listing in congest networks. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 381-389, 2017. Google Scholar
  32. Joseph Jaja and S Rao Kosaraju. Parallel algorithms for planar graph isomorphism and related problems. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems, 35(3):304-311, 1988. Google Scholar
  33. Tali Kaufman, Michael Krivelevich, and Dana Ron. Tight bounds for testing bipartiteness in general graphs. SIAM Journal on Computing, 33(6):1441-1483, 2004. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539703436424.
  34. Paul J Kelly et al. A congruence theorem for trees. Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 7(1):961-968, 1957. Google Scholar
  35. Johannes Köbler. On graph isomorphism for restricted graph classes. In Conference on Computability in Europe, pages 241-256. Springer, 2006. Google Scholar
  36. Janne H Korhonen and Joel Rybicki. Deterministic subgraph detection in broadcast congest. In 21st International Conference on Principles of Distributed Systems (OPODIS 2017). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2018. Google Scholar
  37. Eyal Kushilevitz and Noam Nisan. Communication complexity. Cambridge University Press, 1997. Google Scholar
  38. Mitsuru Kusumoto and Yuichi Yoshida. Testing forest-isomorphism in the adjacency list model. In Automata, Languages, and Programming - 41st International Colloquium, ICALP 2014, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 8-11, 2014, Proceedings, Part I, volume 8572 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 763-774. Springer, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43948-7_63.
  39. Reut Levi, Moti Medina, and Dana Ron. Property testing of planarity in the CONGEST model. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC 2018, Egham, United Kingdom, July 23-27, 2018, pages 347-356, 2018. Full version is available in http://arxiv.org/abs/1805.10657. URL: https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3212748.
  40. Nathan Linial. Locality in distributed graph algorithms. SIAM Journal on Computing, 21(1):193-201, 1992. Google Scholar
  41. Eugene M Luks. Parallel algorithms for permutation groups and graph isomorphism. In 27th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1986), pages 292-302. IEEE, 1986. Google Scholar
  42. Ilan Newman and Christian Sohler. Every property of hyperfinite graphs is testable. SIAM Journal on Computing, 42(3):1095-1112, 2013. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/120890946.
  43. Krzysztof Onak and Xiaorui Sun. The query complexity of graph isomorphism: bypassing distribution testing lower bounds. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2018, Los Angeles, CA, USA, June 25-29, 2018, pages 165-171, 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3188745.3188952.
  44. David Peleg. Distributed computing. SIAM Monographs on discrete mathematics and applications, 5, 2000. Google Scholar
  45. Gregory Valiant and Paul Valiant. The power of linear estimators. In 2011 IEEE 52nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 403-412. IEEE, 2011. Google Scholar
  46. Oleg Verbitsky. Planar graphs: Logical complexity and parallel isomorphism tests. In Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, pages 682-693. Springer, 2007. Google Scholar
  47. Andrew Chi-Chin Yao. Probabilistic computations: Toward a unified measure of complexity. In 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1977), pages 222-227. IEEE, 1977. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing

Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail