An Introduction to Reductions

This post assumes an undergraduate level of computer science engineering education. Basic familiarity with concepts such as Turing machines, P, NP, NP-completeness, decidability, and undecidability is also assumed. The reader is always encouraged to contact me in the comments or via email if there is anything they need to be clarified. Without further ado, let's dive in.

Why do we need reductions?

From Archimedes terrorizing the good folk of ancient Syracuse to Newton watching apples fall during a medieval plague, science has always progressed one 'Eureka!' at a time. Romantic as these anecdotes may be, for mathematics, we can hardly look to Mother Nature for providing us the key insight to our proofs. 

Therefore, we must develop principled approaches and techniques to solve new and unseen problems. Here is the good part - most unsolved problems we encounter already have some relation to some existing problem. This relation to solved problems is something that we can now prod and prick incessantly and eventually use to arrive at a conclusion about the new problems. While hardly elegant in its conception, this approach is extremely sophisticated in its execution. This is the basis for the mathematical technique known as reduction. 

When can we use reduction techniques?

Take two problems, $O$ (an old problem) and $N$ (a new problem). Consider the two following situations that might arise where we would ideally like to avoid reinventing the wheel.

1. We know that $O$ is easy to solve, and we notice that the underlying mathematical structure of $N$ is similar to $O$. 
2. We know that $O$ is hard to solve, and once again, $N$ is similar to $O$.

Hard problems are typically those we do not know how to solve or know are very hard to solve. Here, the notion of hard and easy depends entirely on the computational resources available. Access to powerful computational models might allow us to efficiently find solutions to previously hard-to-solve problems. For example, SAT can be easily solved if we have a decider for the Halting problem.

In the first case, our primary approach is to transform instances of $N$ into instances of $O$ and then use the algorithm for $O$ to solve for $N$. In other words, using our existing knowledge of $O$, we solve $N$ and demonstrate that $N$ is a special case of $O$. Mathematically we say that $N\subseteq O$ or $N$ reduces to $O$.

In the second case, we can again exploit the structural similarities, but this time to a different end. Without prior context, it is difficult to show that $N$ is hard to solve. Therefore, we start with the assumption that $N$ is easy to solve. Now exploiting the similarities between $O$ and $N$, we transform all instances of $O$ to some instance of $N$. This gives rise to a contradiction. We have apparently shown that $O$ reduces to $N$, but we can prove that $O$ is hard to solve. Therefore $N$ has to be hard to solve as well. Otherwise, we could use the algorithm for $N$ to solve for $O$.

Let us explore a few properties of reductions now.

Remarks on reductions

Relative Hardness
If $A\subseteq B$, then $B$ is at least as hard as $A$ to solve, i.e., $A$ cannot be harder to solve than $B$. 

Reductions as relations

1. Trivially $A\subseteq A$ by using identity transformations. Therefore reductions are reflexive relations.
2. If $A\subseteq B$ and $B\subseteq C$ then we can prove that $A\subseteq C$ by composing the transformations. Therefore reductions are transitive relations.
3. Reductions are, however, not symmetric relations (and, therefore, by extension, not equivalence relations).
   As stated earlier, if $A\subseteq B$, then $B$ is at least as hard or harder to solve than $A$. Therefore, $A\subseteq B$ does not imply $B\subseteq A$. A concrete example of this was discussed: We can reduce SAT, which is a decidable problem, to the Halting problem, which is an undecidable problem, but the converse is not true. 

Formalizing reductions

The observant reader will notice that until this point, we have not provided an actual mathematical definition of reductions. The reason for this is simple. Reductions are a highly general family of techniques, and to provide a rigorous formalization of reductions, we consider some specific variants.

A formal way of looking at reductions is as follows: given an oracle for a problem $B$, can we solve $A$ efficiently by making oracle calls to $B$? If yes, then $A\subseteq B$. Here, an oracle is nothing but a black-box subroutine for efficiently solving a problem. We do not need to bother about the internal mechanisms of the oracle itself - we just have to use the oracle's existence.

Implicitly this is a two-step process. First instances of $A$ are reduced/transformed to instances of $B$. Then we perform invocation(s) to the oracle for $B$ to solve for these transformed instances. Depending on the output of the $B$ oracle, we decide our output for the $A$ oracle. We denote this mathematically as $x\in A \iff R(x) \in B$.

The notion of efficiency is twofold. Firstly, we look at how efficient the transformation/reduction from $x$ to $R(x)$ is. Secondly, for the oracle $O_B$, we are concerned with how many times the oracle is invoked. The notion of efficiency in transforming $x$ to $R(x)$ has a small caveat, which we explore via an example. Only the construction of the reduction method $R$ needs to be efficient, and solving $O_B(R(x))$ does not need to be efficient.

 

Using our previous example, let's look at how we would reduce SAT to the Halting problem. 

1. Our input $x$ is the SAT formula. 
2. We construct a TM $T$ which accepts $x$ and does the following: 
1. $T$ iterates over all possible assignments to find a satisfying assignment. 
2. If $T$ finds a satisfying assignment, it will halt. 
3. Otherwise, we put $T$ into an infinite loop. 
3. Our reduction $R(x)$ takes the SAT formula and returns an encoding of $T$ with $x$. More precisely, we have something like $R(x)=\left<\lfloor T\rfloor,x\right>$.
4. We pass $R(x)$ to $O_{\text{halt}}$. 
1. If $O_{\text{halt}}$ returns yes, this implies $T$ halts on input $x$, which in turn implies $x$ has a satisfying assignment. Therefore $R(x)\in\text{HALT}\implies x\in\text{SAT}$.
2. If $O_{\text{halt}}$ returns no, then $T$ does not halt on input $x$, which implies that $x$ does not have a satisfying assignment. Therefore $R(x)\notin\text{HALT}\implies x\notin\text{SAT}$. We can take the contrapositive of this expression to obtain $x\in\text{SAT}\implies R(x)\in\text{HALT}$.

In step 2, we are simply constructing the TM $T$, not executing it. The reduction is the transformation of the SAT formula $x$ to an encoding of both the Turing Machine and the SAT formula, which is an instance of the Halting problem (HALT$_{TM}$ requires an arbitrary TM and an input string to the TM).

Taxonomy of Polynomial-time reductions

The time taken to transform $x$ to $R(x)$ and the number of calls to $O_B$ is polynomial. These are the most commonly studied types of reductions, and we look at three kinds of polynomial-time reductions.

Karp Reductions / poly-time Many-one reductions

These are the most restrictive type of reductions. Given a single input $x$, $R(x)$ produces a single instance $y$ such that $x\in A\iff y\in B$. Here $\ell\in L$ refers to $\ell$ being an instance of $L$. Therefore, we have to perform only one oracle call to $O_B$. The earlier reduction from SAT to HALT was a Karp reduction.

We can choose to strengthen the notion of Karp reductions to include weaker forms of reductions. 

• For example, in logspace many-one reductions, we can compute $R(x)$ using just logarithmic space instead of polynomial time. 
• Even more restrictive notions of reductions consider reductions computable by constant depth circuit classes.

Truth Table Reductions

These are reductions in which given a single input $x$, $R(x)$ produces a constant number of outputs $y_1,y_2,\ldots, y_k$ to $B$. The output $O_A(x)$ can be expressed in terms of a function $f$ that combines the outputs $O_B(y_i)$ for $i\in[1,\ldots,k]$. Let us assume that $f$ outputs $1$ for the desired combination and $0$ otherwise.

$$x\in A\iff f\left(y_1\in B, y_1\in B,\ldots,y_k\in B\right)=1$$

Here, $f$ is efficiently computable, and there are a constant ($k$) number of oracle calls to $O_B$. 

Let us consider an example. Consider two problems on a graph $G$ with a constant number of vertices $\ell$.

• $A$: What is the minimum sized independent set for $G$?
• $B$: Does $G$ have an independent set of size $k$?

The reduction $A\subseteq B$ would involve looping from $1$ to $\ell$ and querying $B$ each time. The combination function would be an OR function. At the first yes instance of $B$, we return the value as the answer for $A$. If there is no independent set in $G$, the worst number of calls to $O_B$ is $\ell$.

Cook Reductions / poly-time Turing Reductions

Here, we are allowed a polynomial number of oracle calls and polynomial time for transforming the inputs. These are the most general form of reductions, and the other forms of reductions are restrictions of Cook reductions. In the example graph $G$ used for TT reductions, if we assume the number of vertices of $G$ to be a polynomial, then the reduction $A\subseteq B$ using the same exact process would be a Cook reduction.

$$A\subseteq_{m} B \implies A\subseteq_{tt} B \implies A\subseteq_{T} B$$

where, $\subseteq_{m}$ denotes Karp reductions, $\subseteq_{tt}$ denotes Truth Table reductions, and $\subseteq_{T}$ denotes Cook reductions.

Aside: From the nature of the examples, we can see that Karp reductions only extend to decision problems (problems with yes/no outputs). In contrast, Cook reductions can accommodate search/relation/optimization problems (problems with a set of outputs).

Basic reductions in Computability Theory

In this section, the reader is assumed to have familiarity with concepts of decidability and undecidability. Let us now proceed with some instances of reductions in computability theory.

Let $A\subseteq B$, and they are decision problems.

1. If $A$ is decidable, what can we say about $B$?
2. If $A$ is semi-decidable, what can we say about $B$?
3. If $A$ is undecidable, what can we say about $B$?

We know that $B$ is at least as hard as $A$. Therefore in 1, $B$ may be decidable, semi-decidable, or undecidable. In 2, $B$ may be semi-decidable, or undecidable. In 3, $B$ is undecidable.

The third case is of interest here - To show that a $B$ is undecidable, we must find a reduction from $A$ to $B$, where $A$ is already known to be undecidable. Note: The reduction function must itself be a computable function.

Now again, consider $A\subseteq B$ where they are decision problems. We can conclude the following:

1. If $B$ is decidable, $A$ is decidable.
2. If $B$ is semi-decidable, $A$ is semi-decidable.
3. If $A$ is not decidable, then $B$ is not decidable.
4. If $A$ is not semi-decidable, then $B$ is not semi-decidable.
5. $A\subseteq B$, then $\bar{A}\subseteq \bar{B}$, where $A$ and $B$ are decidable problems.

The first two statements are true, as discussed above, while 3 is the contrapositive of 1 and 4 is the contrapositive of 2. For 5, the proof is as follows: $x\in \bar{A} \iff x\notin A \iff R(x)\notin B \iff R(x)\in\bar{B}$. Therefore, $x\in \bar{A} \iff R(x)\in\bar{B}$. Immediately we see the power of formalizing the notion of reductions.

Notions of reductions in Complexity Theory

A complexity class is a set of computational problems that can be solved using similar amounts of bounded resources (time, space, circuit depth, number of gates, etc.) on a given computational model (Turing machines, cellular automaton, etc.). 

The complexity classes P, NP, and PSPACE are closed under Karp and logspace reductions. The complexity classes $L$ and $NL$ are closed only under logspace reductions. Closure has the following semantics - given a problem $A$ in a complexity class C, any problem $B$ such that $B\subseteq A$ is also in C. 

We now explore two interesting notions in complexity theory that arise from reductions.

Completeness

Complete problems usually are the hardest set of problems with respect to their given complexity class. Given a complexity class C which is closed under reduction $r$, if there exists a problem $A$ in C such that all other problems in C are $r$-reducible to $A$, $A$ is said to be C-complete. 

For example, an NP-complete problem is in NP, and all problems in NP are Karp-reducible to it. The notions of PSPACE-completeness and EXPTIME-completeness are similarly defined under Karp-reductions.

The role of reductions in this context can be understood through P-completeness. Consider any non-trivial decision problem in P (trivial problems are akin to constant functions). Every other non-trivial decision problem is Karp-reducible to it. Therefore every non-trivial decision problem is P-complete under Karp-reductions. This definition is essentially the same as P (minus the empty language and $\Sigma^*$). Under Karp-reductions, the notion of P-completeness is semantically useless. Therefore, we use weaker forms of reductions such as logspace reductions or reductions using constant depth circuit computable functions to achieve a more meaningful notion of P-completeness.

Self reducibility

Decision problems are yes/no problems where we ask if a solution exists. However, sometimes we also want to solve the corresponding search problem to find a solution (if one exists).

In the context of languages in NP, self-reducibility essentially states that if we can efficiently solve the decision version of a problem, we can also efficiently solve the search/optimization version of the problem. A more formal definition would be as follows - the search version of a problem Cook-reduces (polynomial-time Turing-reduces) to the decision version of the problem. Every NP-complete problem is self-reducible and downward self-reducible.