We made significant progress towards our goals in the project's first two years. We formulated a conceptual framework for graph similarity and, within it, compared different similarity measures and studied their computational complexity. An important distinction we introduced is between operational and declarative similarity measures. Under the operational view, two graphs are similar if one can easily be transformed into the other. Under the declarative view, two graphs are similar if they have similar properties. There are natural and well-known examples of both types of similarities. It is one of our central goals to connect these two views and show that, in some sense, they are dual.
A natural declarative approach to similarity is comparing the frequencies of patterns in the two graphs. Technically, this leads to similarities based on homomorphism embeddings, which have been a focus of our attention. By developing a novel mathematical machinery drawing from areas such as representation theory and functional analysis, we were able to connect them to natural operational similarity measures based on matrix norms.
In practice, we typically learn features and similarities of graphs from data. Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are the method of choice. It is known that they are related to homomorphism embeddings. We studied the expressivity and generalisation properties of GNNs. Our main result is a precise characterisation of GNNs in terms of logic and classical circuit complexity.
Towards the graph isomorphism problem, we gave a new isomorphism algorithm for the class of tournaments, a specific graph class that has played a very interesting role for the graph isomorphism problem. The runtime of our algorithm is parameterised in terms of the twin width of the input tournaments and is very efficient as long as the twin width is small.
The combinatorial Weisfeiler-Leman algorithm plays a central role in both theory and practice of the graph isomorphism problem, and it has applications beyond that, most notably in machine learning. Going back to Fürer (2001), it was a long-standing open question how many iterations the k-dimensional WL algorithm requires in the worst case? We settled this question by establishing a strong lower bound, complemented by a non-trivial upper bound. Our novel proof technique for the lower bound has also found other applications since then.