You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The optimization problem in that PR just minimizes the total number of relin ops (with a hard-bound on the maximum key basis size allowed in the program). We could relax this by having a cost per (operation, degree) tuple, and charging the solver for doing ops with a larger key basis. It's not clear how much this could improve efficiency/noise growth, but some papers (like Blatt-Gusev-Polyakov-Rohloff-Vaikuntanathan 2019 https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/223) mention that they might NEVER do relinearization.
It's also not clear to what extent various libraries we export to would support high-basis-degree ops.
But to implement this feature, we would mainly need a way to estimate costs of the ops, and the changes to the ILP would be relatively small.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Pre-filing issue for #1016
The optimization problem in that PR just minimizes the total number of relin ops (with a hard-bound on the maximum key basis size allowed in the program). We could relax this by having a cost per (operation, degree) tuple, and charging the solver for doing ops with a larger key basis. It's not clear how much this could improve efficiency/noise growth, but some papers (like Blatt-Gusev-Polyakov-Rohloff-Vaikuntanathan 2019 https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/223) mention that they might NEVER do relinearization.
It's also not clear to what extent various libraries we export to would support high-basis-degree ops.
But to implement this feature, we would mainly need a way to estimate costs of the ops, and the changes to the ILP would be relatively small.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: