Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Proper ZK treatment in
plonky2
#1625base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Proper ZK treatment in
plonky2
#1625Changes from 15 commits
a684e1b
b7b6741
bda10fe
1650fee
b79391b
e7bdfb7
b49f30c
c1a878c
1468eea
86f5f44
5f33cdb
df43c71
d64ef5d
4e8a45f
7298d83
aaab023
b075770
6aa4ca6
0080b86
8a00cda
ae41b3f
5c44217
39d94cf
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Shouldn't we shift the quotient by
alpha
? At this point in execution, thefinal_poly
is still "empty".There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It will be shifted at the next step, won't it (since at the next step, final_poly = quotient, and we apply
alpha.shift_poly(&mut final_poly);
)? Or am I missing something?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmmm... I am confused. First of all, the having the zk-clause in each
{point, polynomial}
instance suggests as if we had the possibility of several mask polynomialsR(X)
. I know it is activated only in the first instanceidx = 0
, but still confusing.Anyway, assuming that the loop starts with instance
idx = 0
, then in this stepfinal_poly
is still empty and we addR(X)
to the quotientresulting in
with two terms belonging to the
alpha^0
-weight.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why do you need to multiply
R(X)
byalpha^n
? You would always get a uniform poly, and is not what is written in the paperThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I had seen that the indices in the paper started at 1 and assumed that the alpha for the quotient poly was shifted because of R (as in R was the first element in the sum:
R + alpha q_1 + ...
). But upon looking at the code, you are right: we already start withalpha
and not 1, so I'll remove the multiplication byalpha^n
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same here, as in the batch FRI oracle. Shouldn't we shift
quotient
?