Certifying Zero-Knowledge Circuits with Refinement Types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zero-knowledge (ZK) proof systems have emerged as a promising solution for building security-sensitive applications. However, bugs in ZK applications are extremely difficult to detect and can allow a malicious party to silently exploit the system without leaving any observable trace. This paper presents Coda, a novel statically-typed language for building zero-knowledge applications. Critically, Coda makes it possible to formally specify and statically check properties of a ZK application through a rich refinement type system. One of the key challenges in formally verifying ZK applications is that they require reasoning about polynomial equations over large prime fields that go beyond the capabilities of automated theorem provers. Coda mitigates this challenge by generating a set of Coq lemmas that can be proven in an interactive manner with the help of a tactic library. We have used Coda to re-implement 77 arithmetic circuits from widely-used Circom libraries and applications. Our evaluation shows that Coda makes it possible to specify important and formally verify correctness properties of these circuits. Our evaluation also revealed 6 previously-unknown vulnerabilities in the original Circom projects.
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".