Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #973 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 71.66% 71.91% +0.24%
==========================================
Files 156 159 +3
Lines 34316 34659 +343
==========================================
+ Hits 24593 24924 +331
- Misses 9723 9735 +12 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
| } | ||
|
|
||
| DenseMultilinearPolynomial { | ||
| evals: poly_evals.clone(), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be better if we can avoid this clone
| let half = 1 << (n - 1); | ||
| let new_evals: Vec<FieldElement<F>> = (0..half) | ||
| .map(|j| { | ||
| let a = self.evals[j].clone(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
same, would be better to work with references
| } | ||
| evaluations.push(self.evaluate(point).unwrap()); | ||
| } | ||
| evaluations |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Given that we are in Lagrange basis, this is just returning the elements contained in the vector defining the polynomial
|
|
||
| pub trait Channel<F: IsField> { | ||
| fn append_field_element(&mut self, element: &FieldElement<F>); | ||
| fn draw_felt(&mut self) -> FieldElement<F>; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i would use consistent naming
provers/sumcheck/src/verifier.rs
Outdated
| let eval_1 = univar.evaluate(&FieldElement::<F>::one()); | ||
|
|
||
| if self.round == 0 { | ||
| println!( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why are we keeping the println? The way I see this, the protocol works so long as the polynomial is multilinear
crypto/src/lib.rs
Outdated
| pub mod fiat_shamir; | ||
| pub mod hash; | ||
| pub mod merkle_tree; | ||
| //pub mod sumcheck; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why do you comment this line? it's better to remove it
crypto/src/lib.rs
Outdated
| pub mod fiat_shamir; | ||
| pub mod hash; | ||
| pub mod merkle_tree; | ||
| //pub mod sumcheck; |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /// Constructs a DenseMultilinearPolynomial from a vector of evaluations and the number of variables. | ||
| pub fn from_evaluations_vec(num_vars: usize, evaluations: Vec<FieldElement<F>>) -> Self { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this function could be implemented using the From trait
provers/sumcheck/src/verifier.rs
Outdated
| }); | ||
| } | ||
| } else { | ||
| let sum = eval_0.clone() + eval_1.clone(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is it possible to sum without clonning the elements?
| /// Collapses the last variable by fixing it to 0 and 1, | ||
| /// sums the evaluations, and returns a univariate polynomial (as a Polynomial) | ||
| /// of the form: sum0 + (sum1 - sum0) * x. | ||
| pub fn to_univariate(&self) -> Polynomial<FieldElement<F>> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If the polynomial is linear, the prover can save work from the verifier by providing poly(0) and poly(1), and so the verifier just has to check poly(0) + poly(1) = sum. If the polynomial is not linear, this optimization is not as useful
| where | ||
| <F as IsField>::BaseType: Send + Sync, | ||
| { | ||
| pub fn new( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If the sumcheck is just for multilinear, having two evaluations per polynomial is more than enough, and no additional checks will be needed. However, if the degree is larger, then we must ensure that the maximum degree is bounded by d.
5 participants
Add sumcheck protocol
Description
This PR introduces a basic naive implementation of the Sumcheck Protocol using Multilinear Polynomials.
Type of change