Skip to content
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

Lagrange basis aurora speedup2 #30

Draft
wants to merge 13 commits into
base: lagrange_basis_aurora_speedup2
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

pwang00
Copy link
Contributor

@pwang00 pwang00 commented Nov 10, 2020

Addresses #28

Copy link
Member

@ValarDragon ValarDragon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice work! Couple of changes suggested!

libiop/protocols/encoded/lincheck/basic_lincheck_aux.hpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
libiop/protocols/encoded/lincheck/basic_lincheck_aux.tcc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
libiop/protocols/encoded/lincheck/basic_lincheck_aux.tcc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@ValarDragon ValarDragon changed the base branch from lagrange_basis_aurora_speedup2 to master November 10, 2020 21:58
@ValarDragon ValarDragon changed the base branch from master to lagrange_basis_aurora_speedup2 November 10, 2020 21:59
@@ -94,24 +94,28 @@ std::shared_ptr<std::vector<FieldT>> multi_lincheck_virtual_oracle<FieldT>::eval
* [TODO: cite Succinct Aurora] instead of powers of alpha. */
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you change that citation to be [BCGGRS19]?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

err, no the original citation was right. I meant can you change the TODO haha

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

err, no the original citation was right. I meant can you change the TODO haha

Oh my bad, yeah will be fixed in upcoming commit.

constraint_domain_vanishing_polynomial_inverses = batch_inverse(this->constraint_domain_vanishing_polynomial_
.evaluations_over_field_subset(this->codeword_domain_));

for (int i = 0; i < variable_domain_vanishing_polynomial_evaluations.size(); i++)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Minor note, can you put the following line of code in a { } block? Consistency with this sort of thing makes it easier to review the final code base. Hope to integrate linting soon, so there will be an automatic check for this sort of thing.



/* If |variable_domain| > |constraint_domain|, we multiply the Lagrange sampled
polynomial by Z_{variable_domain}*Z_{constraint_domain}^-1 */
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Lagrange sampled polynomial -> Lagrange sampled polynomial (p_alpha_prime)

FieldT p_alpha_prime_X = this->p_alpha_.evaluation_at_point(evaluation_point);;
// Depending on the cardinalities of the constraint / variable domain
// multiplies the constraint domain vanishing polynomial Z_C = (Z_C(a) - Z_C(X)) / (a - X) with Z_V / Z_C, where
// Z_V is the variable domain vanishing polynomial. Since polynomials typically don't have inverses,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you make this comment the same as the one in evaluated_contents

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants