Tight k on lookups #5
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
iquerejeta
approved these changes
Apr 24, 2024
Thanks @iquerejeta ! |
miguel-ambrona
force-pushed
the
ambrona@tight-k
branch
from
65ba423
to
4a17a99
Compare
iquerejeta
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 8, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
PR on PSE:
privacy-scaling-explorations#317
We disable two checks on key generation that made sure the row being filled was within the usable rows.
These checks are not necessary for fixed columns (where we disabled them), because fixed columns are public and are not blinded. Indeed, they are computed at setup time.
These checks served as a sanity check though, because in general one would not want to assign values at unusable offsets. On exception is the case of lookups. Thanks to this change, we can now run circuits with
2^klookup tables on ak-domain. Before this change, a(k+1)-domain was needed.This solution is good IMHO, but I suggest opening a GitHub issue to revisit this problem in the future to possibly enable/disable the check via an additional argument to the
assign_fixedfunction.