Browse Source

update Spartan notes with recaps

master
arnaucube 1 year ago
parent
commit
83fe57e50f
3 changed files with 84 additions and 35 deletions
  1. +1
    -0
      README.md
  2. BIN
      notes_spartan.pdf
  3. +83
    -35
      notes_spartan.tex

+ 1
- 0
README.md

@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ Notes, code and documents done while reading books and papers.
- [Notes on Sigma protocol and OR proofs](sigma-or-notes.pdf) - [Notes on Sigma protocol and OR proofs](sigma-or-notes.pdf)
- [Notes on Reed-Solomon codes](notes_reed-solomon.pdf) - [Notes on Reed-Solomon codes](notes_reed-solomon.pdf)
- [Notes on FRI](notes_fri.pdf) - [Notes on FRI](notes_fri.pdf)
- [Notes on Spartan](notes_spartan.pdf)
- [Notes on Nova](notes_nova.pdf) - [Notes on Nova](notes_nova.pdf)
Also some Sage implementations can be found in the `*.sage` files of this repo. Also some Sage implementations can be found in the `*.sage` files of this repo.

BIN
notes_spartan.pdf


+ 83
- 35
notes_spartan.tex

@ -44,30 +44,29 @@
\tableofcontents \tableofcontents
\section{Encoding R1CS instances as low-degree polynomials}
\section{R1CS into Sum-Check protocol}
\begin{definition}{R1CS} \begin{definition}{R1CS}
$\exists w \in \mathbb{F}^{m - |io| - 1}$ such that $(A \cdot z) \circ (B \cdot z) = (C \cdot z)$, where $z=(io, 1, w)$. $\exists w \in \mathbb{F}^{m - |io| - 1}$ such that $(A \cdot z) \circ (B \cdot z) = (C \cdot z)$, where $z=(io, 1, w)$.
\end{definition} \end{definition}
\textbf{Thm 4.1} $\forall$ R1CS instance $x = (\mathbb{F}, A, B, C, io, m, n)$, $\exists$ a degree-3 log m-variate polynomial $G$ such that $\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^{log m}} G(x) = 0$.
\textbf{Thm 4.1} $\forall$ R1CS instance $x = (\mathbb{F}, A, B, C, io, m, n)$, $\exists$ a degree-3 log m-variate polynomial $G$ such that $\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^{log m}} G(x) = 0$ iff $\exists$ a witness $w$ such that $Sat_{R1CS}(x, w)=1$.
% \begin{theorem}{4.1} // TODO use theorem gadget % \begin{theorem}{4.1} // TODO use theorem gadget
% $\forall$ % $\forall$
% \begin{end} % \begin{end}
\vspace{0.5cm} \vspace{0.5cm}
For a RCS instance $x$, let $s = \lceil log m \rceil$.
% For a RCS instance $x$, let $s = \lceil \log m \rceil$.
We can view matrices $A, B, C \in \mathbb{F}^{m \times m}$ as functions $\{0,1\}^s \times \{0,1\}^s \rightarrow \mathbb{F}$.
We can view matrices $A, B, C \in \mathbb{F}^{m \times m}$ as functions $\{0,1\}^s \times \{0,1\}^s \rightarrow \mathbb{F}$ ($s= \lceil \log m \rceil$).
For a given witness $w$ to $x$, let $z=(io, 1, w)$. For a given witness $w$ to $x$, let $z=(io, 1, w)$.
View $z$ as a function $\{0,1\}^s \rightarrow \mathbb{F}$, so any entry in $z$ can be accessed with a $s$-bit identifier. View $z$ as a function $\{0,1\}^s \rightarrow \mathbb{F}$, so any entry in $z$ can be accessed with a $s$-bit identifier.
\begin{small}
$$ $$
F_{io}(x)=
$$
$$
\left( \sum_{y \in \{0,1\}^s} A(x, y) \cdot Z(y) \right) \cdot \left( \sum_{y \in \{0,1\}^s} B(x, y) \cdot Z(y) \right) - \left( \sum_{y \in \{0,1\}^s} C(x, y) \cdot Z(y) \right)
F_{io}(x)=\left( \sum_{y \in \{0,1\}^s} A(x, y) \cdot Z(y) \right) \cdot \left( \sum_{y \in \{0,1\}^s} B(x, y) \cdot Z(y) \right) - \sum_{y \in \{0,1\}^s} C(x, y) \cdot Z(y)
$$ $$
\end{small}
\begin{lemma}{4.1} \begin{lemma}{4.1}
$\forall x \in \{0,1\}^s,~ F_{io}(x)=0$ iff $Sat_{R1CS}(x,w)=1$. $\forall x \in \{0,1\}^s,~ F_{io}(x)=0$ iff $Sat_{R1CS}(x,w)=1$.
@ -75,11 +74,12 @@ $$
$F_{io}(\cdot)$ is a function, not a polynomial, so it can not be used in the Sum-check protocol. $F_{io}(\cdot)$ is a function, not a polynomial, so it can not be used in the Sum-check protocol.
consider its polynomial extension $\widetilde{F}_{io}(x): \mathbb{F}^s \rightarrow \mathbb{F}$,
$$\widetilde{F}_{io}(x)=$$
$F_{io}(x)$ function is converted to a polynomial by using its polynomial extension $\widetilde{F}_{io}(x): \mathbb{F}^s \rightarrow \mathbb{F}$,
\begin{small}
$$ $$
\left( \sum_{y \in \{0,1\}^s} \widetilde{A}(x, y) \cdot \widetilde{Z}(y) \right) \cdot \left( \sum_{y \in \{0,1\}^s} \widetilde{B}(x, y) \cdot \widetilde{Z}(y) \right) - \left( \sum_{y \in \{0,1\}^s} \widetilde{C}(x, y) \cdot \widetilde{Z}(y) \right)
\widetilde{F}_{io}(x)=\left( \sum_{y \in \{0,1\}^s} \widetilde{A}(x, y) \cdot \widetilde{Z}(y) \right) \cdot \left( \sum_{y \in \{0,1\}^s} \widetilde{B}(x, y) \cdot \widetilde{Z}(y) \right) - \sum_{y \in \{0,1\}^s} \widetilde{C}(x, y) \cdot \widetilde{Z}(y)
$$ $$
\end{small}
\begin{lemma}{4.2} \begin{lemma}{4.2}
$\forall x \in \{0,1\}^s,~ \widetilde{F}_{io}(x)=0$ iff $Sat_{R1CS}(x, w)=1$. $\forall x \in \{0,1\}^s,~ \widetilde{F}_{io}(x)=0$ iff $Sat_{R1CS}(x, w)=1$.
@ -94,9 +94,12 @@ Verifier can check if $\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^s} \widetilde{F}_{io}(x)=0$ using the
But: $\sum_{x\in \{0,1\}^s} \widetilde{F}_{io}(x)=0 \centernot\Longleftrightarrow F_{io}(x)=0 \forall x \in \{0,1\}^s$. But: $\sum_{x\in \{0,1\}^s} \widetilde{F}_{io}(x)=0 \centernot\Longleftrightarrow F_{io}(x)=0 \forall x \in \{0,1\}^s$.
Bcs: the $2^s$ terms in the sum might cancel each other even when the individual terms are not zero. Bcs: the $2^s$ terms in the sum might cancel each other even when the individual terms are not zero.
Solution: consider
Solution: combine $\widetilde{F}_{io}(x)$ with $\widetilde{eq}(t, x)$ to get $Q_{io}(t, x)$ as a zero-polynomial
$$Q_{io}(t)= \sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^s} \widetilde{F}_{io}(x) \cdot \widetilde{eq}(t, x)$$ $$Q_{io}(t)= \sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^s} \widetilde{F}_{io}(x) \cdot \widetilde{eq}(t, x)$$
where $\widetilde{eq}(t, x) = \prod_{i=1}^s (t_i \cdot x_i + (1- t_i) \cdot (1- x_i))$.
where $\widetilde{eq}(t, x) = \prod_{i=1}^s (t_i \cdot x_i + (1- t_i) \cdot (1- x_i))$, which is the MLE of $eq(x,e)= \{ 1 ~\text{if}~ x=e,~ 0 ~\text{otherwise} \}$.
Basically $Q_{io}(\cdot)$ is a multivariate polynomial such that Basically $Q_{io}(\cdot)$ is a multivariate polynomial such that
$$Q_{io}(t) = \widetilde{F}_{io}(t) ~\forall t \in \{0,1\}^s$$ $$Q_{io}(t) = \widetilde{F}_{io}(t) ~\forall t \in \{0,1\}^s$$
@ -105,17 +108,24 @@ $\Longleftrightarrow$ iff $\widetilde{F}_{io}(\cdot)$ encodes a witness $w$ such
To check that $Q_{io}(\cdot)$ is a zero-polynomial: check $Q_{io}(\tau)=0,~ \tau \in^R \mathbb{F}^s$ (Schwartz-Zippel-DeMillo–Lipton lemma). To check that $Q_{io}(\cdot)$ is a zero-polynomial: check $Q_{io}(\tau)=0,~ \tau \in^R \mathbb{F}^s$ (Schwartz-Zippel-DeMillo–Lipton lemma).
\paragraph{Recap}
\begin{itemize}
\item[] We have that $Sat_{R1CS}(x,w)=1$ iff $F_{io}(x)=0$.
\item[] To be able to use sum-check, we use its polynomial extension $\widetilde{F}_{io}(x)$, using sum-check to prove that $\widetilde{F}_{io}(x) =0 ~\forall x \in \{0, 1\}^s$, which means that $Sat_{R1CS}(x,~w)=1$.
\item[] To prevent potential canceling terms, we combine $\widetilde{F}_{io}(x)$ with $\widetilde{eq}(t, x)$, obtaining $G_{io, \tau}(x)= \widetilde{F}_{io}(x) \cdot \widetilde{eq}(t, x)$.
\item[] Thus $Q_{io}(t)= \sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^s} \widetilde{F}_{io}(x) \cdot \widetilde{eq}(t, x)$, and then we prove that $Q_{io}(\tau)=0$, for $\tau \in^R \mathbb{F}^s$.
\end{itemize}
\section{NIZKs with succint proofs for R1CS} \section{NIZKs with succint proofs for R1CS}
From Thm 4.1: to check R1CS instance $(\mathbb{F}, A, B, C, io, m, n)$ V can check if From Thm 4.1: to check R1CS instance $(\mathbb{F}, A, B, C, io, m, n)$ V can check if
$$\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^s} G_{io, \tau} (r_x)$$
where $r_x \in \mathbb{F}^s$.
$\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^s} G_{io, \tau} (x) = 0$, which through sum-check protocol can be reduced to $e_x = G_{io, \tau} (r_x)$, where $r_x \in \mathbb{F}^s$.
Recall: $G_{io, \tau}(x) = \widetilde{F}_{io}(x) \cdot \widetilde{eq}(\tau, x)$. Recall: $G_{io, \tau}(x) = \widetilde{F}_{io}(x) \cdot \widetilde{eq}(\tau, x)$.
To evaluate $\widetilde{F}_{io}(r_x)$, V needs to evaluate
$$\forall y \in \{0,1\}^s: \widetilde{A}(r_x, y), \widetilde{B}(r_x, y), \widetilde{C}(r_x, y), \widetilde{Z}(y)$$
evaluations of $\widetilde{Z}(y) ~\forall y \in \{0,1\}^s ~\Longleftrightarrow (io, 1, w)$.
Evaluating $\widetilde{eq}(\tau, r_x)$ takes $O(log~m)$, but to evaluate $\widetilde{F}_{io}(r_x)$, V needs to evaluate
$$\widetilde{A}(r_x, y), \widetilde{B}(r_x, y), \widetilde{C}(r_x, y), \widetilde{Z}(y),~ \forall y \in \{0,1\}^s$$
But: evaluations of $\widetilde{Z}(y) ~\forall y \in \{0,1\}^s ~\Longleftrightarrow (io, 1, w)$.
Solution: combination of 3 protocols: Solution: combination of 3 protocols:
\begin{itemize} \begin{itemize}
@ -124,33 +134,51 @@ Solution: combination of 3 protocols:
\item polynomial commitment scheme \item polynomial commitment scheme
\end{itemize} \end{itemize}
Observation: let $\widetilde{F}_{io}(r_x) = \bar{A}(r_x) \cdot \bar{B}(r_x) - \bar{C}(r_x)$, where
$$\bar{A}(r_x) = \sum_{y \in \{0,1\}} \widetilde{A}(r_x, y) \cdot \widetilde{Z}(y)$$
$$\bar{B}(r_x) = \sum_{y \in \{0,1\}} \widetilde{B}(r_x, y) \cdot \widetilde{Z}(y)$$
$$\bar{C}(r_x) = \sum_{y \in \{0,1\}} \widetilde{C}(r_x, y) \cdot \widetilde{Z}(y)$$
Observation: let $\widetilde{F}_{io}(r_x) = \overline{A}(r_x) \cdot \overline{B}(r_x) - \overline{C}(r_x)$, where
$$\overline{A}(r_x) = \sum_{y \in \{0,1\}} \widetilde{A}(r_x, y) \cdot \widetilde{Z}(y)$$
$$\overline{B}(r_x) = \sum_{y \in \{0,1\}} \widetilde{B}(r_x, y) \cdot \widetilde{Z}(y)$$
$$\overline{C}(r_x) = \sum_{y \in \{0,1\}} \widetilde{C}(r_x, y) \cdot \widetilde{Z}(y)$$
Prover makes 3 separate claims: $\bar{A}(r_x)=v_A,~ \bar{B}(r_x)=v_B,~ \bar{C}(r_x)=v_C$,
Prover makes 3 separate claims: $\overline{A}(r_x)=v_A,~ \overline{B}(r_x)=v_B,~ \overline{C}(r_x)=v_C$,
then V evaluates: then V evaluates:
$$G_{io, \tau}(r_x) = (v_A \cdot v_B - v_C) \cdot \widetilde{eq}(r_x, \tau)$$ $$G_{io, \tau}(r_x) = (v_A \cdot v_B - v_C) \cdot \widetilde{eq}(r_x, \tau)$$
which could be 3 sum-check protocol instances. Instead: combine 3 claims into a single claim:
V samples $r_A, r_B, r_C \in^R \mathbb{F}$, and computes $c= r_A v_A + r_B v_B + r_C v_C$.
V, P use sum-check protocol to check:
$$r_A \cdot \bar{A}(r_x) + r_B \cdot \bar{B}(r_x) + r_C \cdot \bar{C}(r_x) == c$$
\begin{footnotesize}
which equals to
$$=\left(\overline{A}(r_x) \cdot \overline{B}(r_x) - \overline{C}(r_x)\right) \cdot \widetilde{eq}(r_x, \tau)=$$
$$\left(\left(\sum_{y \in \{0,1\}} \widetilde{A}(r_x, y) \cdot \widetilde{Z}(y)\right) \cdot \left(\sum_{y \in \{0,1\}} \widetilde{B}(r_x, y) \cdot \widetilde{Z}(y)\right) - \sum_{y \in \{0,1\}} \widetilde{C}(r_x, y) \cdot \widetilde{Z}(y)\right) \cdot \widetilde{eq}(r_x, \tau)$$
\end{footnotesize}
\vspace{0.5cm}
This would be 3 sum-check protocol instances (3 claims: $\overline{A}(r_x)=v_A$, $\overline{B}(r_x)=v_B$, $\overline{C}(r_x)=v_C$).
Instead, combine 3 claims into a single claim:
Let $L(r_x) = r_A \cdot \bar{A}(r_x) +r_B \cdot \bar{B}(r_x) +r_C \cdot \bar{C}(r_x)$,
\begin{itemize}
\item V samples $r_A, r_B, r_C \in^R \mathbb{F}$, and computes $c= r_A v_A + r_B v_B + r_C v_C$.
\item V, P use sum-check protocol to check:
$$r_A \cdot \overline{A}(r_x) + r_B \cdot \overline{B}(r_x) + r_C \cdot \overline{C}(r_x) == c$$
% Let $L(r_x) = r_A \cdot \overline{A}(r_x) +r_B \cdot \overline{B}(r_x) +r_C \cdot \overline{C}(r_x)$,
Let
\begin{small}
\begin{align*} \begin{align*}
L(r_x) &= \sum_{y \in \{0,1\}^s}
r_A \cdot \widetilde{A}(r_x, y) \cdot \widetilde{Z}(y)
+ r_B \cdot \widetilde{B}(r_x, y) \cdot \widetilde{Z}(y)
+ r_C \cdot \widetilde{C}(r_x, y) \cdot \widetilde{Z}(y)\\
&L(r_x) = r_A \cdot \overline{A}(r_x) +r_B \cdot \overline{B}(r_x) +r_C \cdot \overline{C}(r_x)\\
&= \sum_{y \in \{0,1\}^s}
\left( r_A \cdot \widetilde{A}(r_x, y) \cdot \widetilde{Z}(y)
+ r_B \cdot \widetilde{B}(r_x, y) \cdot \widetilde{Z}(y)
+ r_C \cdot \widetilde{C}(r_x, y) \cdot \widetilde{Z}(y) \right)\\
&= \sum_{y \in \{0,1\}^s} M_{r_x}(y) &= \sum_{y \in \{0,1\}^s} M_{r_x}(y)
\end{align*} \end{align*}
\end{small}
$M_{r_x}(y)$ is a s-variate polynomial with deg $\leq 2$ in each variable ($\Longleftrightarrow \mu = s,~ l=2,~ T=c$). $M_{r_x}(y)$ is a s-variate polynomial with deg $\leq 2$ in each variable ($\Longleftrightarrow \mu = s,~ l=2,~ T=c$).
\end{itemize}
\begin{align*} \begin{align*}
M_{r_x}(r_y) &= M_{r_x}(r_y) &=
@ -163,12 +191,30 @@ r_A \cdot \widetilde{A}(r_x, r_y) \cdot \widetilde{Z}(r_y)
+ r_C \cdot \widetilde{C}(r_x, r_y)) \cdot \widetilde{Z}(r_y)\\ + r_C \cdot \widetilde{C}(r_x, r_y)) \cdot \widetilde{Z}(r_y)\\
\end{align*} \end{align*}
only one term in $M_{r_x}(r_y)$ depends on prover's witness: $\widetilde{Z}(r_y)$
only one term in $M_{r_x}(r_y)$ depends on prover's witness: $\widetilde{Z}(r_y)$, the other terms can be computed locally by V in $O(n)$ time (Section 6 of the paper for sub-linear in $n$).
P sends a commitment to $\widetilde{w}(\cdot)$ (= MLE of the witness $w$) to V before the first instance of the sum-check protocol.
Instead of evaluating $\widetilde{Z}(r_y)$ in $O(|w|)$ communications, P sends a commitment to $\widetilde{w}(\cdot)$ (= MLE of the witness $w$) to V before the first instance of the sum-check protocol.
\paragraph{Recap}
\begin{itemize}
\item[] To check the R1CS instance, V can check $\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^s} G_{io, \tau} (x) = 0$, which through the sum-check is reduced to $e_x = G_{io, \tau} (r_x)$, for $r_x \in \mathbb{F}^s$.
\item[] Evaluating $G_{io, \tau}(x)$ ($G_{io, \tau}(x) = \widetilde{F}_{io}(x) \cdot \widetilde{eq}(\tau, x)$) is not cheap. Evaluating $\widetilde{eq}(\tau, r_x)$ takes $O(log~m)$, but to evaluate $\widetilde{F}_{io}(r_x)$, V needs to evaluate $\widetilde{A}, \widetilde{B}, \widetilde{C}, \widetilde{Z},~ \forall y \in \{0,1\}^s$
% \item[] Solution: combine 3 protocols: sum-check protocol, randomized mini protocol, polynomial commitment scheme.
\item[] P makes 3 separate claims: $\overline{A}(r_x)=v_A,~ \overline{B}(r_x)=v_B,~ \overline{C}(r_x)=v_C$, so V can evaluate $G_{io, \tau}(r_x) = (v_A \cdot v_B - v_C) \cdot \widetilde{eq}(r_x, \tau)$
\item[] The previous claims are combined into a single claim (random linear combination) to use only a single sum-check protocol:
\begin{itemize}
\item[] P: $c= r_A v_A + r_B v_B + r_C v_C$, for $r_A, r_B, r_C \in^R \mathbb{F}$
\item[] V, P: sum-check $r_A \cdot \overline{A}(r_x) + r_B \cdot \overline{B}(r_x) + r_C \cdot \overline{C}(r_x) == c$
\end{itemize}
\item[] $c=L(r_x)=\sum_{y \in \{0,1\}^s} M_{r_x}(y)$, where $M_{r_x}(y)$ is a s-variate polynomial with deg $\leq 2$ in each variable ($\Longleftrightarrow \mu = s,~ l=2,~ T=c$). Only $\widetilde{Z}(r_y)$ depends on P's witness, the other terms can be computed locally by V.
\item[] Instead of evaluating $\widetilde{Z}(r_y)$ in $O(|w|)$ communications, P uses a commitment to $\widetilde{w}(\cdot)$ (= MLE of the witness $w$).
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Full protocol} \subsection{Full protocol}
\begin{footnotesize}
(Recall: Sum-Check params: $\mu$: n vars, n rounds, $l$: degree in each variable upper bound, $T$: claimed result.)
\end{footnotesize}
\begin{itemize} \begin{itemize}
\item $pp \leftarrow Setup(1^{\lambda})$: invoke $pp \leftarrow PC.Setup(1^{\lambda}, log m)$; output $pp$ \item $pp \leftarrow Setup(1^{\lambda})$: invoke $pp \leftarrow PC.Setup(1^{\lambda}, log m)$; output $pp$
@ -195,7 +241,9 @@ P sends a commitment to $\widetilde{w}(\cdot)$ (= MLE of the witness $w$) to V b
\end{enumerate} \end{enumerate}
\end{itemize} \end{itemize}
\vspace{2cm}
Section 6 of the paper, describes how in step 16, instead of evaluating $\widetilde{A},~\widetilde{B},~\widetilde{C}$ at $r_x,~r_y$ with $O(n)$ costs, P commits to $\widetilde{A},~\widetilde{B},~\widetilde{C}$ and later provides proofs of openings.
\vspace{1cm}
\framebox{WIP: covered until sec.6} \framebox{WIP: covered until sec.6}

Loading…
Cancel
Save