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

Implemented Mova folding scheme #161

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Oct 23, 2024
Merged
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions folding-schemes/src/folding/mod.rs
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
pub mod circuits;
pub mod hypernova;
pub mod mova;
pub mod nova;
pub mod protogalaxy;
127 changes: 127 additions & 0 deletions folding-schemes/src/folding/mova/mod.rs
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
use crate::commitment::CommitmentScheme;
NiDimi marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
use crate::transcript::AbsorbNonNative;
use crate::utils::mle::dense_vec_to_dense_mle;
use crate::utils::vec::is_zero_vec;
use crate::Error;
use ark_crypto_primitives::sponge::Absorb;
use ark_ec::CurveGroup;
use ark_ff::PrimeField;
use ark_poly::MultilinearExtension;
use ark_serialize::{CanonicalDeserialize, CanonicalSerialize};
use ark_std::rand::RngCore;

use ark_std::{log2, One, UniformRand, Zero};

/// Implements the scheme described in [Mova](https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/1220.pdf)
mod nifs;
mod pointvsline;
mod traits;

#[derive(Debug, Clone, Eq, PartialEq, CanonicalSerialize, CanonicalDeserialize)]
pub struct CommittedInstance<C: CurveGroup> {
// Random evaluation point for the E
pub rE: Vec<C::ScalarField>,
// MLE of E
pub mleE: C::ScalarField,
arnaucube marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
pub u: C::ScalarField,
pub cmW: C,
pub x: Vec<C::ScalarField>,
}
#[derive(Debug, Clone, Eq, PartialEq, CanonicalSerialize, CanonicalDeserialize)]
pub struct Witness<C: CurveGroup> {
pub E: Vec<C::ScalarField>,
pub W: Vec<C::ScalarField>,
pub rW: C::ScalarField,
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Isn't this exactly as in Nova? Maybe we can reuse the struct from there and like this, gain some functions already implemented duplicating less code

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nova's witness also has a rE which is the blindness used for the commit of the Error term. Since we don't commit the error term in Mova, we don't need it. We can, however, if you prefer use the Nova's witness and make sure to always keep it at 0. To also address your comment below (about the fold_witness) the difference is that in Nova we have the calculation of rE using rT. Again we can use it by keeping rT always to zero. I am happy either way so just let me know which direction you prefer:

  • Unique (but similar) Witness and fold_witness for Mova
  • Use Nova's ones but keep rE and rT always zero.


#[derive(Debug, Clone, Eq, PartialEq, CanonicalSerialize, CanonicalDeserialize)]
pub struct InstanceWitness<C: CurveGroup> {
pub ci: CommittedInstance<C>,
pub w: Witness<C>,
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe we could add some comments for these structs. Specially since both have w inside. So would be nice to refer to the paper to understand the diffs etc..


impl<C: CurveGroup> Witness<C> {
pub fn new<const H: bool>(w: Vec<C::ScalarField>, e_len: usize, mut rng: impl RngCore) -> Self {
let rW = if H {
C::ScalarField::rand(&mut rng)
} else {
C::ScalarField::zero()
};

Self {
E: vec![C::ScalarField::zero(); e_len],
W: w,
rW,
}
}

pub fn dummy(w_len: usize, e_len: usize) -> Self {
let rW = C::ScalarField::zero();
let w = vec![C::ScalarField::zero(); w_len];

Self {
E: vec![C::ScalarField::zero(); e_len],
W: w,
rW,
}
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There's a trait for this which would likely make more sense to implement.

See: https://github.com/privacy-scaling-explorations/sonobe/blob/main/folding-schemes/src/folding/nova/mod.rs#L82


pub fn commit<CS: CommitmentScheme<C>>(
&self,
params: &CS::ProverParams,
x: Vec<C::ScalarField>,
rE: Vec<C::ScalarField>,
) -> Result<CommittedInstance<C>, Error> {
let mut mleE = C::ScalarField::zero();
if !is_zero_vec::<C::ScalarField>(&self.E) {
let E = dense_vec_to_dense_mle(log2(self.E.len()) as usize, &self.E);
mleE = E.evaluate(&rE).ok_or(Error::NotExpectedLength(
rE.len(),
log2(self.E.len()) as usize,
))?;
}
let cmW = CS::commit(params, &self.W, &self.rW)?;
Ok(CommittedInstance {
rE,
mleE,
u: C::ScalarField::one(),
cmW,
x,
})
}
}

impl<C: CurveGroup> CommittedInstance<C> {
pub fn dummy(io_len: usize) -> Self {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ditto.

Self {
rE: vec![C::ScalarField::zero(); io_len],
mleE: C::ScalarField::zero(),
u: C::ScalarField::zero(),
cmW: C::zero(),
x: vec![C::ScalarField::zero(); io_len],
}
}
}

impl<C: CurveGroup> Absorb for CommittedInstance<C>
where
C::ScalarField: Absorb,
{
fn to_sponge_bytes(&self, _dest: &mut Vec<u8>) {
// This is never called
unimplemented!()
}

fn to_sponge_field_elements<F: PrimeField>(&self, dest: &mut Vec<F>) {
self.u.to_sponge_field_elements(dest);
self.x.to_sponge_field_elements(dest);
self.rE.to_sponge_field_elements(dest);
self.mleE.to_sponge_field_elements(dest);
// We cannot call `to_native_sponge_field_elements(dest)` directly, as
// `to_native_sponge_field_elements` needs `F` to be `C::ScalarField`,
// but here `F` is a generic `PrimeField`.
self.cmW
.to_native_sponge_field_elements_as_vec()
.to_sponge_field_elements(dest);
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We should change the trait bounds here @winderica @arnaucube right? It should not affect the rest of impls. We will just need to enforce the bounds sometimes.

Maybe @NiDimi can you file an issue for this?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry for missing your comment! This is in fact introduced by me in https://github.com/privacy-scaling-explorations/sonobe/blame/cb1b8e37aa07dda255d3f3651385a45613beed4e/folding-schemes/src/folding/nova/mod.rs#L112-L121. Let me check if this can be resolved by changing the trait bound. Will create an issue or PR in these days!

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Issue opened: #170

}
Loading
Loading