MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400692708 · doi:10.1007/s12095-024-00723-0

Uni/multi variate polynomial embeddings for zkSNARKs

2024· article· en· W4400692708 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCryptography and Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Data Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom variatePolynomialMathematicsComputer scienceAlgebra over a fieldPure mathematicsStatisticsMathematical analysisRandom variable

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.670

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it