Proper sumcheck verifier circuit logic #726
Assignees
Comments
4 tasks
ledwards2225
added a commit
to AztecProtocol/aztec-packages
that referenced
this issue
Sep 27, 2023
Handle some TODOs including: - (Issue #[726](AztecProtocol/barretenberg#726)) Reconfigure Sumcheck Verifier to always return a `SumcheckOutput` rather than a `std::optional<SumcheckOutput>`. This was fine for native verification but doesn't work in the recursive setting (and the same SumcheckVerifier code is shared between the two). For native verification / debugging purposes, the verifier now returns a `verified` flag as part of `SumcheckOutput`. In the recursive setting, the verifier does not "abort early" if sumcheck fails, the proof will simply fail to verify. - Add failure tests for the Honk recursive verifiers. (There was no issue associated with this). - There were several instances of `TODO(luke)` (without a corresponding issue) that were outdated, easily fixed, or more appropriate as `Note:`'s
AztecBot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 28, 2023
Handle some TODOs including: - (Issue #[726](#726)) Reconfigure Sumcheck Verifier to always return a `SumcheckOutput` rather than a `std::optional<SumcheckOutput>`. This was fine for native verification but doesn't work in the recursive setting (and the same SumcheckVerifier code is shared between the two). For native verification / debugging purposes, the verifier now returns a `verified` flag as part of `SumcheckOutput`. In the recursive setting, the verifier does not "abort early" if sumcheck fails, the proof will simply fail to verify. - Add failure tests for the Honk recursive verifiers. (There was no issue associated with this). - There were several instances of `TODO(luke)` (without a corresponding issue) that were outdated, easily fixed, or more appropriate as `Note:`'s
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Ensure Sumcheck recursive verifier algorithm is properly constrained and determine how adjust the current native mechanism of optionally returning values for the recursive setting.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: