* New implementation of InterpolationGate
* Use CosetInterpolationGate in recursive verifier
* Minimize the degree of interpolation gate
Minimize the degree if it doesn't increase the number of wires or constraints. This allows for more efficiency with selectors.
* Include tests for number of wires and constraints
* Run rustfmt
* Run cargo fmt
* Fix documentation typo
Co-authored-by: wborgeaud <williamborgeaud@gmail.com>
* Fix clippy issue
Co-authored-by: wborgeaud <williamborgeaud@gmail.com>
Reverts the degree adjustment part of #436. As @jimpo pointed out, the adjustment complicates security by allowing rational functions of the form `poly(x) / x`.
A tight degree bound shouldn't be necessary. Ultimately we want to check that some witness function `f(x)` exists satisfying (simplified) `c(f(x)) = Z_H(x) q(x)`. We only need `f(x)` to be low-degree because that allows us to use polynomial identity testing. With PIT we don't care about exact degree bounds; a negligible degree change will have a negligible effect on PIT soundness.
The goal here is to end up with a single "root" circuit representing any EVM proof. I.e. it must verify each STARK, but be general enough to work with any combination of STARK sizes (within some range of sizes that we chose to support). This root circuit can then be plugged into our aggregation circuit.
In particular, for each STARK, and for each initial `degree_bits` (within a range that we choose to support), this adds a "shrinking chain" of circuits. Such a chain shrinks a STARK proof from that initial `degree_bits` down to a constant, `THRESHOLD_DEGREE_BITS`.
The root circuit then combines these shrunk-to-constant proofs for each table. It's similar to `RecursiveAllProof::verify_circuit`; I adapted the code from there and I think we can remove it after. The main difference is that now instead of having one verification key per STARK, we have several possible VKs, one per initial `degree_bits`. We bake the list of possible VKs into the root circuit, and have the prover indicate the index of the VK they're actually using.
This also partially removes the default feature of CTLs. So far we've used filters instead of defaults. Until now it was easy to keep supporting defaults just in case, but here maintaining support would require some more work. E.g. we couldn't use `exp_u64` any more, since the size delta is now dynamic, it can't be hardcoded. If there are no concerns, I'll fully remove the feature after.
In preparation for adding the zkEVM aggregation circuit. Mainly,
- Adds a `WitnessWrite` trait, a sub-trait of `Witness`, and move the write methods to it. `GeneratedValues` impls `WitnessWrite`, which lets generators like `DummyProofGenerator` access all our write methods like `set_proof_with_pis_target`. Also removes some duplication.
- Remove `set_cyclic_recursion_data_target` - now that dummy proof data is automatically populated, all that remains is populating `condition` and the cyclic proof + VK. I think it's easy enough for callers to do this; the steps are the same as with `conditionally_verify_proof`. This way there's no cyclic-recursion-specific API to learn about.
- Split `cyclic_recursion` into two variants, one which checks the current circuit or a dummy, and a more general one which checks the current circuit or some other circuit. We can use the latter to build a more efficient aggregation circuit, where we check another aggregation proof or an EVM proof, with no dummy proofs involved.
- Have the caller to `cyclic_recursion` create and pass in the virtual proof
- Split `dummy_proof` into preprocessing and proving, so that we don't need to redo the preprocessing work in each `set_cyclic_recursion_data_target` call
- Have the caller update `num_public_inputs` instead of doing it in `cyclic_recursion`. This is a little less convenient but I think it's best not to modify the caller's config (principle of least surprise)
- Have `set_cyclic_recursion_data_target` take a sparse set of public inputs. Taking some PIs with the lowest indices didn't seem very general. I still have some reservations about this part of the API - I think it would seem cleaner if PIs of a proof which wasn't selected for verification were simply ignored - but perhaps there are some optimization reasons to keep using them.
Followup to #806.
A few goals here
- Zero dependencies on std. (Previously deserialization depended on std for `Cursor`.)
- Provide a single (memory buffering) impl of `Write` to make sure there's no confusion. (Previously `Buffer` and `Vec<u8>` both implemented it.)
- Move closer to the `std::io` APIs. Hopefully they will be available without std at some point (there have been some discussions...).
More specifically, this
- Changes `Buffer` to not use std's `Cursor`.
- Removes `impl Write` for `Buffer`, since it's implemented for `Vec<u8>`.
- Adds a concrete I/O error type to mimic `std::io`'s.
- Combines `Position` and `Size` into `Remaining`.
We don't think this is required for soundness, but just to remove any doubt.
Old protocol:
```
...
P sends final_poly
V samples random r
P sends pow_witness (not in transcript)
V computes pow_response = H(r, pow_witness)
V asserts pow_response has N leading 0s
...
```
New protocol:
```
...
P sends final_poly
P sends pow_witness
V samples random pow_response
V asserts pow_response has N leading 0s
...
```
* Use static `KERNEL` in tests
* Print opcode count
* Update criterion
* Combine all syscalls into one flag (#802)
* Combine all syscalls into one flag
* Minor: typo
* Daniel PR comments
* Check that `le_sum` won't overflow
* security notes
* Test reverse_index_bits
Thanks to Least Authority for this
* clippy
* EVM shift left/right operations (#801)
* First parts of shift implementation.
* Disable range check errors.
* Tidy up ASM.
* Update comments; fix some .sum() expressions.
* First full draft of shift left/right.
* Missed a +1.
* Clippy.
* Address Jacqui's comments.
* Add comment.
* Fix missing filter.
* Address second round of comments from Jacqui.
* Remove signed operation placeholders from arithmetic table. (#812)
Co-authored-by: wborgeaud <williamborgeaud@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Daniel Lubarov <daniel@lubarov.com>
Co-authored-by: Jacqueline Nabaglo <jakub@mirprotocol.org>
Co-authored-by: Hamish Ivey-Law <426294+unzvfu@users.noreply.github.com>
