WHIR switch to Plonky3 #858
Conversation
…ceno into feat/whir/switch-to-plonky3
|
Current benchmarking result:
|
| { | ||
| match digest { | ||
| Digest::Base(digest) => { | ||
| digest |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it possible to avoid the clone by implementing Iterator on digest? I tried but it wasn't as easy as I thought. Perhaps you can find a better way?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Discussed with Yuncong on this similar issue and unfortunately we dont have easier way to avoid this after introducing field-agnostic generalization. But clone on digest is ok and the prover cost is negligible for now.
| let mut res = Vec::with_capacity(folding_factor); | ||
|
|
||
| for _ in 0..folding_factor { | ||
| let sumcheck_poly = self.sumcheck_prover.compute_sumcheck_polynomial(); | ||
| merlin.add_scalars(sumcheck_poly.evaluations())?; | ||
| let [folding_randomness]: [F; 1] = merlin.challenge_scalars()?; | ||
| sumcheck_polys.push(sumcheck_poly.evaluations().to_vec()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about:
let sumcheck_poly = self.sumcheck_prover.compute_sumcheck_polynomial();
transcript.append_field_element_exts(sumcheck_poly.evaluations());
let folding_randomness = transcript
.sample_and_append_challenge(b"folding_randomness")
.elements;
res.push(folding_randomness);
self.sumcheck_prover
.compress(E::ONE, &[folding_randomness], &sumcheck_poly);
sumcheck_polys.push(sumcheck_poly.evaluations);Need to make sumcheck_poly.evaluations public but avoids a to_vec().
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Makes sense. But the save is very small, because sumcheck_poly is just a three-coefficient polynomial.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can submit a PR to this branch.
| @@ -103,80 +67,104 @@ where | |||
|
|
|||
| #[cfg(test)] | |||
| mod tests { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do these tests all pass? I seem to encounter a problem with batch_commit
There was a problem hiding this comment.
They all pass on my laptop. Can you share the error message?
| let mut res = Vec::with_capacity(folding_factor); | ||
|
|
||
| for _ in 0..folding_factor { | ||
| let sumcheck_poly = self.sumcheck_prover.compute_sumcheck_polynomial(); | ||
| merlin.add_scalars(sumcheck_poly.evaluations())?; | ||
| let [folding_randomness]: [F; 1] = merlin.challenge_scalars()?; | ||
| sumcheck_polys.push(sumcheck_poly.evaluations().to_vec()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Move to bottom to avoid to_vec(). Same as above,
| let n = p3::util::log2_strict_usize(evals.height()); | ||
|
|
||
| evals.par_row_chunks_mut(2).for_each(|mut chunk| { | ||
| let to_subtract = chunk.row(0).collect::<Vec<_>>(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would chunk by 1 and then iterate by 2 prevent the copy of row 0?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The compiler complains I can't have both mutable and immutable reference to the chunk when I try to subtract the second row from the first row by only referencing into them without copying.
Can you provide the code for your suggestion?
Compilation and tests passed.
Current benchmark results: