-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 36
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
feat: Implement batch operations in non_hiding_kzg module #269
Merged
huitseeker
merged 2 commits into
lurk-lang:dev
from
huitseeker:reintroduce_naive_batch_kzg
Jan 23, 2024
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
As Adrian mentioned (and I then could also convince myself by observing the implementation), this form of pairings check is more optimal, comparing to:
as it saves one
multi_miller_loop
and onefinal_exponentiation
call. However that requires some manipulating with input parameters, which differs from what is necessary to pass topairing
couple. For example, given vanilla KZG10 specification, described here, the final check is specified like:which has following Rust equivalent:
Alternatively (more optimally), one can write this check as:
which I derived empirically.
I wonder if there is a systematic way that allows turning the
e() == e()
formula into more optimal one:Thanks in advance, for answering, @huitseeker !
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 believe the underpinnings of the speed of this API have been discussed elsewhere, but to summarize:
Hence the API you're remarking on above. The equivalent API in Arkworks is perhaps a bit simpler, but leads to the same idea:
https://github.com/arkworks-rs/algebra/blob/bf96a5b2873e69f3c378c7b25d0901a6701efcc4/ec/src/pairing.rs#L104-L109