-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 295
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
chore: move shared pcs functionality to internal library in solidity and small refactorings in sumcheck #11230
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
maramihali
commented
Jan 15, 2025
•
edited
Loading
edited
- functionality that is shared in PCS between the ZK and non-ZK contract has been moved to a separate internal library.
- simplified ZK sumcheck and pcs logic
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.
@maramihali Would you mind updating the template files ?:
- bb-pilcom/bb-pil-backend/templates/recursive_verifier.cpp.hbs
- bb-pilcom/bb-pil-backend/templates/verifier.cpp.hbs
Otherwise, let us know if AVM team should do that.
@jeanmon on it :) |
barretenberg/cpp/src/barretenberg/commitment_schemes/gemini/gemini_impl.hpp
Show resolved
Hide resolved
// For ZK Flavors: the sum of the Libra constant term and Libra univariates evaluated at Sumcheck challenges, | ||
// otherwise remains the default value 0 | ||
FF claimed_libra_evaluation = 0; | ||
std::optional<bool> verified = false; // Optional b/c this struct is shared by the Prover/Verifier |
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.
do we need to keep it std::optional? switching to just bool would reduce noise in our verifiers
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.
I think the idea of the std::optional is to make it explicit this value is not present for the prover
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.
the changes outside of AVM and sol lgtm, left a couple of comments