Add final lookup constraint.

[alonh5]

This change is 

[alonh5]

• Create phase number constants. #669 : 3 dependent PRs (#671 , #677 , #679 )
• Add final lookup constraint. #667 👈
• Add lookup final boundary constraints. #664
• Separate constraint point evaluation to functions. #662
• Add wide fib lookup step constraint. #646
• Extract constraint code into functions. #644 : 1 other dependent PR (#654 )
• Use SecureField in interaction. #642
• Modify mask_points for interaction. #639
• Modify trace_log_degree_bounds for interaction. #638
• Add wide fib lookup constraint. #637
• Add interaction to proof. #636
• Separate componenet and air trace writers. #651
• dev

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

Join @alonh5 and the rest of your teammates on Graphite

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 90.27%. Comparing base (5d43adf) to head (446122b).

Additional details and impacted files

@@                             Coverage Diff                              @@
##           06-16-add_lookup_final_boundary_constraints     #667   +/-   ##
============================================================================
  Coverage                                        90.27%   90.27%           
============================================================================
  Files                                               75       75           
  Lines                                            10005    10005           
  Branches                                         10005    10005           
============================================================================
  Hits                                              9032     9032           
  Misses                                             892      892           
  Partials                                            81       81           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[shaharsamocha7]

Reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @alonh5 and @spapinistarkware)

---

crates/prover/src/examples/wide_fibonacci/constraint_eval.rs line 199 at r2 (raw file):

                        &[
                            lookup_values[LOOKUP_VALUE_N_MINUS_2_ID],
                            lookup_values[LOOKUP_VALUE_N_MINUS_1_ID],

Those should be fetched at the beginning of the function instead of reading it for each numerator calculation

Code quote:

                            lookup_values[LOOKUP_VALUE_N_MINUS_2_ID],
                            lookup_values[LOOKUP_VALUE_N_MINUS_1_ID],

---

crates/prover/src/examples/wide_fibonacci/constraint_eval.rs line 211 at r2 (raw file):

                        alpha,
                        z,
                    ));

This can be a shared utility function for both the step constraint and the boundary constraint

Code quote:

                * ((value
                    * shifted_secure_combination(
                        &[
                            lookup_values[LOOKUP_VALUE_N_MINUS_2_ID],
                            lookup_values[LOOKUP_VALUE_N_MINUS_1_ID],
                        ],
                        alpha,
                        z,
                    ))
                    - shifted_secure_combination(
                        &[
                            lookup_values[LOOKUP_VALUE_0_ID],
                            lookup_values[LOOKUP_VALUE_1_ID],
                        ],
                        alpha,
                        z,
                    ));

---

crates/prover/src/examples/wide_fibonacci/constraint_eval.rs line 327 at r2 (raw file):

            zero_domain,
            &mut accum,
        );

It would be more efficient to evaluate the numerators together
and the denominators together (i.e. in the same for loop)

That way the memory access pattern is more efficient

Code quote:

        self.evaluate_trace_boundary_constraints(
            trace_evals,
            trace_eval_domain,
            zero_domain,
            &mut accum,
            lookup_values,
        );
        self.evaluate_lookup_step_constraints(
            trace_evals,
            trace_eval_domain,
            zero_domain,
            &mut accum,
            interaction_elements,
        );
        self.evaluate_lookup_boundary_constraints(
            trace_evals,
            trace_eval_domain,
            zero_domain,
            &mut accum,
            interaction_elements,
            lookup_values,
        );
        self.evaluate_trace_step_constraints(
            trace_evals,
            trace_eval_domain,
            zero_domain,
            &mut accum,
        );

[alonh5]

Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @shaharsamocha7 and @spapinistarkware)

---

crates/prover/src/examples/wide_fibonacci/constraint_eval.rs line 199 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, shaharsamocha7 wrote…

Those should be fetched at the beginning of the function instead of reading it for each numerator calculation

Done.

---

crates/prover/src/examples/wide_fibonacci/constraint_eval.rs line 211 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, shaharsamocha7 wrote…

This can be a shared utility function for both the step constraint and the boundary constraint

I tried it and it didn't really save lines of code, so I'll leave it as is for now.

---

crates/prover/src/examples/wide_fibonacci/constraint_eval.rs line 327 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, shaharsamocha7 wrote…

It would be more efficient to evaluate the numerators together
and the denominators together (i.e. in the same for loop)

That way the memory access pattern is more efficient

Added a TODO.

[shaharsamocha7]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 1 of 2 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @spapinistarkware)

[spapinistarkware]

Reviewed 1 of 2 files at r2, 1 of 1 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @alonh5)

[shaharsamocha7]

Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @alonh5)

[alonh5]

Merge activity

• Jul 8, 4:33 AM EDT: @alonh5 started a stack merge that includes this pull request via Graphite.
• Jul 8, 4:35 AM EDT: Graphite rebased this pull request as part of a merge.
• Jul 8, 4:38 AM EDT: @alonh5 merged this pull request with Graphite.