feat: Link successive recursive Merge verifications#16032
Conversation
…b/merge_consistency_checks
| PairingAccumulator points_accumulator; | ||
| OpeningClaim<Curve> opening_claim; | ||
| stdlib::Proof<Builder> ipa_proof; | ||
| TableCommitments merged_table_commitments; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No need to store this as Goblin verification is the end of the verification, there is no operation after it.
federicobarbacovi
requested review from
IlyasRidhuan,
fcarreiro and
jeanmon
as code owners
maramihali
left a comment
maramihali
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks great overall, left a couple of suggestions to improve clarity
| #include "barretenberg/stdlib/pairing_points.hpp" | ||
| #include "barretenberg/stdlib/primitives/circuit_builders/circuit_builders_fwd.hpp" | ||
| #include "barretenberg/stdlib/primitives/curves/bn254.hpp" | ||
| #include "barretenberg/stdlib/primitives/databus/databus.hpp" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
instead of special public inputs maybe we could call thing client_ivc_io_types or something :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see your point. Luke chose this name, so I'll tag him @ledwards2225 and we can chat about this once he's back
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@federicobarbacovi (tagging myself as well)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A better name is definitely warranted! "special public inputs" was never meant to be permanent
|
|
||
| // Commitments to the previous status of the op_queue, to be finalized according to the recursive verification we | ||
| // are performing | ||
| TableCommitments finalised_T_prev_commitments = T_prev_commitments; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
finalised is quite a confusing name
| @@ -38,9 +39,47 @@ TYPED_TEST(MockVerifierInputsTest, MockOinkProofSize) | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: there isn't much point in preserving these tests typed given that their functionality for each flavor is entirely different, I would rather split them in three tests. - ditto below
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed, I split them up. I also removed the RollupIO test, as I noticed that it was never meant to be there (the flavors are Ultra and Mega, no Rollup). Should we ever need to bring it back, the new structure of create_mock_*_proof would make it easy to do so.
maramihali
left a comment
maramihali
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thanks, will you please resolve my requests before merging :)
See [merge-train-readme.md](https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/blob/next/.github/workflows/merge-train-readme.md). BEGIN_COMMIT_OVERRIDE chore: remove `logic` operations from `uint` (#15975) chore: Modify the `MergeVerifier` so that it gets the subtable commitments as input and returns the commitment to the merged table (#15949) fix: delete tar generated by test-vk-havent-changed script (#15988) chore: replace q_arith with q_3 in memory relation (#15953) chore: simplify `uint` logic by removing `witness_status` (#15976) Revert "chore: remove `logic` operations from `uint`" (#15997) Revert "chore: simplify `uint` logic by removing `witness_status`" (#16000) feat: Add the last merged table to the public inputs of the hiding circuit (#15829) chore: combined `uint` audit (#16030) chore: delete and ignore barretenberg/src/honk/keys/ (#16042) fix: Fix tube proof construction (#16052) feat: Link successive recursive Merge verifications (#16032) chore: Package inputs to Merge verifier into a single struct (#16075) END_COMMIT_OVERRIDE --------- Co-authored-by: AztecBot <tech@aztecprotocol.com> Co-authored-by: Suyash Bagad <suyash@aztecprotocol.com> Co-authored-by: federicobarbacovi <171914500+federicobarbacovi@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Jonathan Hao <jonathan@aztec-labs.com> Co-authored-by: ledwards2225 <98505400+ledwards2225@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: sergei iakovenko <105737703+iakovenkos@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: ludamad <adam.domurad@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Raju Krishnamoorthy <krishnamoorthy@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: notnotraju <raju@aztec-labs.com> Co-authored-by: Lucas Xia <lucasxia01@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Khashayar Barooti <khashayar@aztecprotocol.com> Co-authored-by: Jean M <132435771+jeanmon@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Alex Gherghisan <alexghr@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Santiago Palladino <spalladino@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Santiago Palladino <santiago@aztec-labs.com> Co-authored-by: ludamad <domuradical@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: maramihali <mara@aztecprotocol.com> Co-authored-by: Sarkoxed <75146596+Sarkoxed@users.noreply.github.com>
3 participants
We address AztecProtocol/barretenberg#1351: Merge protocol table commitment consistency checks.
More precisely, we ensure the Merge recursive verification at step$i+1$ uses as commitments to the previous state of the op queue the output of the Merge recursive verification at step $i$ . Instead of performing a consistency check between the output at step $i$ and the input at step $i+1$ , we pass the output at step $i$ as the input at step $i+1$ .
This PR also closes AztecProtocol/barretenberg#1473.