Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A zero-knowledge proof is a cryptographic primitive that enables a prover to convince a verifier the validity of a mathematical statement (an NP statement) without revealing any secret inputs to the verifier. A special case, called zero-knowledge Succinct Non-interactive ARgument of Knowledge (zkSNARK) is particularly designed for arithmetic circuit proof systems which have important applications in blockchain privacy. The major computations in this type of zkSNARK proofs with post-quantum security are polynomial evaluations and Lagrange interpolations over finite fields. Given a sequence over a finite field, in the field of coding and sequences research, we understand that there are two representations of the sequence, one is a univariate polynomial and the other, a multivariate polynomial. This is exactly what is done in those zero-knowledge proof systems to transform the proof of a R1CS relation to evaluate uni/multi variate polynomials at some random points in the finite field. In this paper, we present a comparative analysis on how to convert a rank 1 constrained satisfiability (R1CS) system (more general than a circuit system) into a polynomial equality and provide analysis on the concrete complexities of provers, proof sizes and verifiers. We use two concrete zkSNARK schemes, i.e., Polaris, univariate polynomial encodings and Spartan, multivariate polynomial encodings, as examples to show our analysis. Secondly, we propose to select interpolating sets as subfields instead of affine spaces of a large field for Lagrange interpolation. This new method has improved the performance of R1CS encodings largely. We comment that post-quantum secure zkSNARKs yield post-quantum digital signatures with security only depending on symmetric-key schemes. Some open problems are proposed at the end of the paper.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".