refactor: share code between provers #4655

lucasxia01 · 2024-02-16T20:08:06Z

A lot of code is repeated between the Decider prover, folding prover, and ultra honk prover. This PR aims to reduce duplication by creating a PreSumcheckProver, which supports the 5 round functions before sumcheck.

It does not address the shared code between verifiers or the shared code between prover and verifier. It also is an initial step at a round abstraction, where each round is implemented as a separate class and the data being used/modified in each round is clearly defined.

Resolves AztecProtocol/barretenberg#795.

AztecBot · 2024-02-16T20:44:08Z

Benchmark results

Metrics with a significant change:

note_trial_decrypting_time_in_ms (8): 97.6 (+262%)
note_trial_decrypting_time_in_ms (64): 130 (+270%)

Detailed results

All benchmarks are run on txs on the Benchmarking contract on the repository. Each tx consists of a batch call to create_note and increment_balance, which guarantees that each tx has a private call, a nested private call, a public call, and a nested public call, as well as an emitted private note, an unencrypted log, and public storage read and write.

This benchmark source data is available in JSON format on S3 here.

Values are compared against data from master at commit 7f216eb0 and shown if the difference exceeds 1%.

L2 block published to L1

Each column represents the number of txs on an L2 block published to L1.

Metric	8 txs	32 txs	64 txs
l1_rollup_calldata_size_in_bytes	5,668	18,820	36,356
l1_rollup_calldata_gas	65,884	238,192	468,464
l1_rollup_execution_gas	666,364	952,901	1,335,620
l2_block_processing_time_in_ms	1,278 (-4%)	4,842 (+2%)	9,184 (-3%)
note_successful_decrypting_time_in_ms	190 (-15%)	542 (+13%)	996 (-1%)
note_trial_decrypting_time_in_ms	⚠️ 97.6 (+262%)	59.9 (-38%)	⚠️ 130 (+270%)
l2_block_building_time_in_ms	12,394 (+1%)	49,336 (+2%)	98,063 (+1%)
l2_block_rollup_simulation_time_in_ms	7,308	29,417 (+1%)	58,425 (+1%)
l2_block_public_tx_process_time_in_ms	5,054 (+2%)	19,855 (+2%)	39,529 (+1%)

L2 chain processing

Each column represents the number of blocks on the L2 chain where each block has 16 txs.

Metric	5 blocks	10 blocks
node_history_sync_time_in_ms	14,467 (+1%)	26,300 (-6%)
note_history_successful_decrypting_time_in_ms	1,267 (-1%)	2,425 (-2%)
note_history_trial_decrypting_time_in_ms	109 (-4%)	147 (-23%)
node_database_size_in_bytes	18,624,592 (-1%)	35,303,504
pxe_database_size_in_bytes	29,859	59,414

Circuits stats

Stats on running time and I/O sizes collected for every circuit run across all benchmarks.

Circuit	circuit_simulation_time_in_ms	circuit_input_size_in_bytes	circuit_output_size_in_bytes
private-kernel-init	273	44,338	27,700
private-kernel-ordering	207	52,324	14,326
base-rollup	663	177,083	925
root-rollup	68.7 (+1%)	4,176	789
private-kernel-inner	362 (+1%)	73,197	27,700
public-kernel-app-logic	179	34,582	27,671
public-kernel-tail	91.8	34,206	27,671
merge-rollup	8.30	2,696	925

Tree insertion stats

The duration to insert a fixed batch of leaves into each tree type.

Metric	1 leaves	16 leaves	64 leaves	128 leaves	512 leaves	1024 leaves	2048 leaves	4096 leaves	32 leaves
batch_insert_into_append_only_tree_16_depth_ms	10.1 (+1%)	15.9 (-1%)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
batch_insert_into_append_only_tree_16_depth_hash_count	16.8	31.6	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
batch_insert_into_append_only_tree_16_depth_hash_ms	0.587 (+1%)	0.492 (-1%)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
batch_insert_into_append_only_tree_32_depth_ms	N/A	N/A	45.9 (+1%)	72.1 (-2%)	229	445	863 (-1%)	1,713 (-1%)	N/A
batch_insert_into_append_only_tree_32_depth_hash_count	N/A	N/A	96.0	159	543	1,055	2,079	4,127	N/A
batch_insert_into_append_only_tree_32_depth_hash_ms	N/A	N/A	0.471	0.445 (-2%)	0.419	0.417	0.411 (-1%)	0.411 (-1%)	N/A
batch_insert_into_indexed_tree_20_depth_ms	N/A	N/A	53.8	106	334	661	1,314	2,601	N/A
batch_insert_into_indexed_tree_20_depth_hash_count	N/A	N/A	104	207	691	1,363	2,707	5,395	N/A
batch_insert_into_indexed_tree_20_depth_hash_ms	N/A	N/A	0.480 (+1%)	0.478	0.455	0.455	0.454	0.453	N/A
batch_insert_into_indexed_tree_40_depth_ms	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	61.2
batch_insert_into_indexed_tree_40_depth_hash_count	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	109
batch_insert_into_indexed_tree_40_depth_hash_ms	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.536

Miscellaneous

Transaction sizes based on how many contract classes are registered in the tx.

Metric	0 registered classes
tx_size_in_bytes	19,191

Transaction processing duration by data writes.

Metric	0 new note hashes	1 new note hashes
tx_pxe_processing_time_ms	2,805 (-1%)	1,439

Metric	0 public data writes	1 public data writes
tx_sequencer_processing_time_ms	8.38 (+9%)	614 (+1%)

lucasxia01 · 2024-02-21T12:27:52Z

barretenberg/cpp/src/barretenberg/protogalaxy/shared_prover_setup.cpp

+
+    auto [beta, gamma] =
+        transcript->template get_challenges<typename Flavor::FF>(domain_separator + "beta", domain_separator + "gamma");
+    instance->relation_parameters.beta = beta;


was this forgotten in protogalaxy?

no, line 70 in the protogalaxy_prover.cpp code

auto [beta, gamma] = transcript->template get_challenges<FF>(domain_separator + "_beta", domain_separator + "_gamma");

No, I meant setting the instance->relation_parameters

lucasxia01 · 2024-02-21T12:28:14Z

barretenberg/cpp/src/barretenberg/protogalaxy/shared_prover_setup.cpp

+    witness_commitments.w_o = commitment_key->commit(instance->proving_key->w_o);
+
+    auto wire_comms = witness_commitments.get_wires();
+    auto commitment_labels = instance->commitment_labels;


hoping this auto makes it a const reference

lucasxia01 · 2024-02-21T12:29:05Z

barretenberg/cpp/src/barretenberg/ultra_honk/ultra_transcript.test.cpp

@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ class UltraTranscriptTests : public ::testing::Test {
        size_t frs_per_uint32 = bb::field_conversion::calc_num_bn254_frs<uint32_t>();

        size_t round = 0;
-        manifest_expected.add_entry(round, "circuit_size", frs_per_uint32);
+        manifest_expected.add_entry(round, "instance_size", frs_per_uint32);


hacky-ish fix but seems like the best thing to do to align ultra honk prover and folding prover. We need to have the same string in both cases.

see my comment in ultra_verifier

maramihali · 2024-02-21T14:46:07Z

barretenberg/cpp/src/barretenberg/ultra_honk/ultra_verifier.cpp

@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ template <typename Flavor> bool UltraVerifier_<Flavor>::verify_proof(const HonkP
    CommitmentLabels commitment_labels;

    // TODO(Adrian): Change the initialization of the transcript to take the VK hash?
-    const auto circuit_size = transcript->template receive_from_prover<uint32_t>("circuit_size");
+    const auto circuit_size = transcript->template receive_from_prover<uint32_t>("instance_size");


there is no concept of instance in the ultra_verifier so let's stick to circuit_size

Ok, so you're saying its fine to use circuit_size instead of instance_size for protogalaxy too?

i don't have strong opinions, since this will be refactored soon I think it's fine to have circuit_size in some places and instance_size in the places where we operate on an instance

nono, we have to pick one, because we are sharing the code. I've just picked instance_size for now, but maybe circuit_size is more adept.

maramihali · 2024-02-21T14:46:35Z

barretenberg/cpp/src/barretenberg/ultra_honk/ultra_transcript.test.cpp

@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ class UltraTranscriptTests : public ::testing::Test {
        size_t frs_per_uint32 = bb::field_conversion::calc_num_bn254_frs<uint32_t>();

        size_t round = 0;
-        manifest_expected.add_entry(round, "circuit_size", frs_per_uint32);
+        manifest_expected.add_entry(round, "instance_size", frs_per_uint32);


see my comment in ultra_verifier

maramihali · 2024-02-21T14:49:11Z

barretenberg/cpp/src/barretenberg/ultra_honk/ultra_prover.cpp

-        auto public_input_i = instance->public_inputs[i];
-        transcript->send_to_verifier("public_input_" + std::to_string(i), public_input_i);
-    }
+    execute_preamble_round_(instance, transcript);


I'm not a big fan of this nesting with an extra _, I was envisioning something like PreambleRound::execute(...), like maybe having a generic class with an execute function that all this different types of rounds inherit, a static class if possible

also I dont see the need for these functions anymore, construct_proof function should look like

PreambleRound::execute(..) SortedListAccumulatorRound::execute(...) ....

Moreover, we can do this rounds with sumcheck and zeromorph as well, the code is still duplicated across provers. And the decider prover should also benefit from code reuse

I thought you were removing a lot of the shared code in the decider prover in your PR?

removed all of the extra _ functions too.

maramihali · 2024-02-21T14:59:41Z

barretenberg/cpp/src/barretenberg/protogalaxy/protogalaxy_prover.cpp

 {
    instance->initialize_prover_polynomials();


I believe prover polynomials initialise should be in this prover_setup function, also prover_setup is a very confusing name in this situation because this code is really processing a circuit. Also because this is something unique to ProtoGalaxy at the moment I dont see the benefit of moving part of it in another file. It makes it harder to understand what instance finalisation means

deleted prover_setup and moved initialize_prover_polynomials() to the constructor of the presumcheck prover

maramihali

I think this work needs to be rethought a bit, I gave some suggestions in my comments.

lucasxia01 · 2024-02-26T23:28:22Z

barretenberg/cpp/src/barretenberg/benchmark/ultra_bench/ultra_honk_rounds.bench.cpp

        test_round_inner(state, prover, index);
+        state.ResumeTiming();
+        // NOTE: google bench is very finnicky, must end in ResumeTiming() for correctness


not sure why this was removed in the protogalaxy rounds bench. This is required for google bench to function.

hmm, this is not strictly related to this PR and we should be a bit more conservative withchanges to benchmarks so maybe address in a follow-up?

sure, I can just make a separate PR for this

lucasxia01 · 2024-02-26T23:29:08Z

barretenberg/cpp/src/barretenberg/protogalaxy/protogalaxy_verifier.cpp

@@ -70,16 +70,15 @@ void ProtoGalaxyVerifier_<VerifierInstances>::receive_and_finalise_instance(cons
    inst->log_instance_size = static_cast<size_t>(numeric::get_msb(inst->instance_size));
    inst->public_input_size =
        transcript->template receive_from_prover<uint32_t>(domain_separator + "_public_input_size");
+    inst->pub_inputs_offset =


moved above the public inputs to align with ultra_prover's ordering of what it sends

lucasxia01 · 2024-02-26T23:31:08Z

barretenberg/cpp/src/barretenberg/ultra_honk/ultra_prover.cpp

    , commitment_key(commitment_key)
-{
-    instance->initialize_prover_polynomials();


this was moved to the PreSumcheckProver

lucasxia01 · 2024-02-27T20:10:37Z

barretenberg/cpp/src/barretenberg/protogalaxy/protogalaxy_prover.cpp

+    pre_sumcheck_prover.execute_sorted_list_accumulator_round();
+    pre_sumcheck_prover.execute_log_derivative_inverse_round();
+    pre_sumcheck_prover.execute_grand_product_computation_round();
+    for (size_t idx = 0; idx < Flavor::NUM_SUBRELATIONS - 1; idx++) {
        instance->alphas[idx] =


this alphas generation is part of sumcheck so its not included in the shared prover

maramihali · 2024-02-28T08:35:21Z

barretenberg/cpp/src/barretenberg/ultra_honk/ultra_verifier.cpp

@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ template <typename Flavor> bool UltraVerifier_<Flavor>::verify_proof(const HonkP
    CommitmentLabels commitment_labels;

    // TODO(Adrian): Change the initialization of the transcript to take the VK hash?
-    const auto circuit_size = transcript->template receive_from_prover<uint32_t>("circuit_size");
+    const auto circuit_size = transcript->template receive_from_prover<uint32_t>("instance_size");


i don't have strong opinions, since this will be refactored soon I think it's fine to have circuit_size in some places and instance_size in the places where we operate on an instance

barretenberg/cpp/src/barretenberg/protogalaxy/presumcheck_prover.hpp

maramihali · 2024-02-28T08:57:58Z

barretenberg/cpp/src/barretenberg/protogalaxy/presumcheck_prover.hpp

+
+namespace bb {
+
+template <IsUltraFlavor Flavor> class PreSumcheckProver {


Can you please add documentation to this class.. also maybe we should discuss whether a prover inside a prover is the right approach, I was envisioning an architecture where we have some shared rounds that can be in a utility class, similar to the utility class for operating on relations that both sumcheck and protogalaxy uses. It would be nice to have this class be static but might require some more refactoring work.

will add more comments. Prover inside prover is already our current standard. We have a SumcheckProver and ZeromorphProver both inside UltraProver.

I agree that the PreSumCheckProver can be split into further classes for each Round, and can eventually be made static or something like that.

That is a good point, I forgot about those. What do you think about creating a PreSumchVerifier as well (since we have a SumcheckVerifier and ZeromorphVerifier)? If you prefer not to do this in this PR, I think an issue should be added

I think that can just go into a followup PR.

ok, please add an issue

maramihali · 2024-02-29T13:44:24Z

barretenberg/cpp/src/barretenberg/protogalaxy/protogalaxy_prover.cpp

-                                 instance->witness_commitments.z_lookup);
-    for (size_t idx = 0; idx < NUM_SUBRELATIONS - 1; idx++) {
+    PreSumcheckProver<Flavor> pre_sumcheck_prover(instance, commitment_key, transcript, domain_separator + '_');
+    pre_sumcheck_prover.execute_preamble_round();


I would call these just pre_sumcheck to be more compliant with how the other inner provers are used (Sumcheck and Zeromorph)

I think it should be clarified if its the prover

maramihali · 2024-02-29T13:47:25Z

barretenberg/cpp/src/barretenberg/protogalaxy/presumcheck_prover.cpp

+template <IsUltraFlavor Flavor> void PreSumcheckProver<Flavor>::execute_grand_product_computation_round()
+{
+    auto& witness_commitments = instance->witness_commitments;
+    const auto& commitment_labels = instance->commitment_labels;


commitment_labels are static and come from flavor so they could become a field in PreSumcheckProver rather than extracting from instance every time

It's just making a const reference of them, so it should be fine?

actually, next PR will do this and remove it from instance at the same time.

maramihali · 2024-02-29T13:48:32Z

barretenberg/cpp/src/barretenberg/protogalaxy/protogalaxy_prover.cpp

-    for (size_t idx = 0; idx < NUM_SUBRELATIONS - 1; idx++) {
+    PreSumcheckProver<Flavor> pre_sumcheck_prover(instance, commitment_key, transcript, domain_separator + '_');
+    pre_sumcheck_prover.execute_preamble_round();
+    pre_sumcheck_prover.execute_wire_commitments_round();


can you please add comments summarising what each of these calls do for readability in a similar way they are found in the UltraProver

maramihali · 2024-02-29T13:51:16Z

barretenberg/cpp/src/barretenberg/ultra_honk/ultra_prover.cpp

@@ -187,19 +67,19 @@ template <IsUltraFlavor Flavor> HonkProof& UltraProver_<Flavor>::export_proof()
 template <IsUltraFlavor Flavor> HonkProof& UltraProver_<Flavor>::construct_proof()
 {
    // Add circuit size public input size and public inputs to transcript->
-    execute_preamble_round();
+    pre_sumcheck_prover.execute_preamble_round();


Also here I would call these just pre_sumcheck

maramihali

Approved, thank you for the back and forth, will you please resolve my final comments, mostly asking for some renaming and a bit more documentation

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into lx/provers-round-sharing

lucasxia01 · 2024-03-11T19:38:59Z

...nberg/cpp/src/barretenberg/stdlib/recursion/honk/verifier/protogalaxy_recursive_verifier.cpp

    const auto public_input_size =
        transcript->template receive_from_prover<FF>(domain_separator + "_public_input_size");
    inst->verification_key->circuit_size = uint32_t(instance_size.get_value());
    inst->verification_key->log_circuit_size =
        static_cast<size_t>(numeric::get_msb(inst->verification_key->circuit_size));
    inst->verification_key->num_public_inputs = uint32_t(public_input_size.get_value());
+    const auto pub_inputs_offset =


reordered for consistency with oink prover

codygunton

Just read at a high level -- looks good!

codygunton · 2024-03-11T19:46:04Z

barretenberg/cpp/src/barretenberg/ultra_honk/oink_prover.hpp

+    void execute_log_derivative_inverse_round();
+    void execute_grand_product_computation_round();
+
+    std::shared_ptr<Instance> instance;


Our convention is to put data members at the top. Would you please?

maramihali

LGTM, will you please resolve my last two comments (type + request for an extra comment)?

maramihali · 2024-03-12T11:43:33Z

barretenberg/cpp/src/barretenberg/benchmark/ultra_bench/ultra_honk_rounds.bench.cpp

-    time_if_index(SORTED_LIST_ACCUMULATOR, [&] { prover.execute_sorted_list_accumulator_round(); });
-    time_if_index(LOG_DERIVATIVE_INVERSE, [&] { prover.execute_log_derivative_inverse_round(); });
-    time_if_index(GRAND_PRODUCT_COMPUTATION, [&] { prover.execute_grand_product_computation_round(); });
+    time_if_index(PREAMBLE, [&] { prover.oink_prover.execute_preamble_round(); });


oink?😅😅

maramihali · 2024-03-12T11:44:09Z

barretenberg/cpp/src/barretenberg/protogalaxy/protogalaxy_prover.cpp

-    const auto num_public_inputs = static_cast<uint32_t>(instance->proving_key->num_public_inputs);
-    transcript->send_to_verifier(domain_separator + "_instance_size", instance_size);
-    transcript->send_to_verifier(domain_separator + "_public_input_size", num_public_inputs);
+    // Add circuit size public input size and public inputs to transcript->


maramihali · 2024-03-12T11:50:30Z

barretenberg/cpp/src/barretenberg/protogalaxy/protogalaxy_prover.cpp

-    transcript->send_to_verifier(domain_separator + "_" + commitment_labels.z_perm,
-                                 instance->witness_commitments.z_perm);
-    transcript->send_to_verifier(domain_separator + "_" + commitment_labels.z_lookup,
-                                 instance->witness_commitments.z_lookup);
    for (size_t idx = 0; idx < NUM_SUBRELATIONS - 1; idx++) {


Can you please add a comment explaining why we generate alphas here in PG?

* master: feat: Nullifier non membership (#5152) refactor: share code between provers (#4655) fix: Increase the json limit for RPC requests (#5161) fix: Move timers for ClientIVC breakdown (#5145) chore(master): Release 0.27.0 (#5100)

🤖 I have created a release *beep* *boop* --- <details><summary>aztec-package: 0.27.1</summary> ## [0.27.1](aztec-package-v0.27.0...aztec-package-v0.27.1) (2024-03-12) ### Miscellaneous * **aztec-package:** Synchronize aztec-packages versions </details> <details><summary>barretenberg.js: 0.27.1</summary> ## [0.27.1](barretenberg.js-v0.27.0...barretenberg.js-v0.27.1) (2024-03-12) ### Miscellaneous * **barretenberg.js:** Synchronize aztec-packages versions </details> <details><summary>aztec-cli: 0.27.1</summary> ## [0.27.1](aztec-cli-v0.27.0...aztec-cli-v0.27.1) (2024-03-12) ### Miscellaneous * **aztec-cli:** Synchronize aztec-packages versions </details> <details><summary>aztec-packages: 0.27.1</summary> ## [0.27.1](aztec-packages-v0.27.0...aztec-packages-v0.27.1) (2024-03-12) ### Features * Further ClientIVC breakdown ([#5146](#5146)) ([c8e1cb8](c8e1cb8)) * Nullifier non membership ([#5152](#5152)) ([426bd6d](426bd6d)) ### Bug Fixes * Increase the json limit for RPC requests ([#5161](#5161)) ([419958c](419958c)) * Move timers for ClientIVC breakdown ([#5145](#5145)) ([5457edb](5457edb)) ### Miscellaneous * **boxes:** Adding clone contract option ([#4980](#4980)) ([a427aa5](a427aa5)) * Share code between provers ([#4655](#4655)) ([ef10d65](ef10d65)) </details> <details><summary>barretenberg: 0.27.1</summary> ## [0.27.1](barretenberg-v0.27.0...barretenberg-v0.27.1) (2024-03-12) ### Features * Further ClientIVC breakdown ([#5146](#5146)) ([c8e1cb8](c8e1cb8)) ### Bug Fixes * Move timers for ClientIVC breakdown ([#5145](#5145)) ([5457edb](5457edb)) ### Miscellaneous * Share code between provers ([#4655](#4655)) ([ef10d65](ef10d65)) </details> --- This PR was generated with [Release Please](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please). See [documentation](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please#release-please).

🤖 I have created a release *beep* *boop* --- <details><summary>aztec-package: 0.27.1</summary> ## [0.27.1](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages@aztec-package-v0.27.0...aztec-package-v0.27.1) (2024-03-12) ### Miscellaneous * **aztec-package:** Synchronize aztec-packages versions </details> <details><summary>barretenberg.js: 0.27.1</summary> ## [0.27.1](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages@barretenberg.js-v0.27.0...barretenberg.js-v0.27.1) (2024-03-12) ### Miscellaneous * **barretenberg.js:** Synchronize aztec-packages versions </details> <details><summary>aztec-cli: 0.27.1</summary> ## [0.27.1](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages@aztec-cli-v0.27.0...aztec-cli-v0.27.1) (2024-03-12) ### Miscellaneous * **aztec-cli:** Synchronize aztec-packages versions </details> <details><summary>aztec-packages: 0.27.1</summary> ## [0.27.1](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages@aztec-packages-v0.27.0...aztec-packages-v0.27.1) (2024-03-12) ### Features * Further ClientIVC breakdown ([#5146](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#5146)) ([c8e1cb8](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages@c8e1cb8)) * Nullifier non membership ([#5152](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#5152)) ([426bd6d](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages@426bd6d)) ### Bug Fixes * Increase the json limit for RPC requests ([#5161](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#5161)) ([419958c](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages@419958c)) * Move timers for ClientIVC breakdown ([#5145](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#5145)) ([5457edb](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages@5457edb)) ### Miscellaneous * **boxes:** Adding clone contract option ([#4980](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#4980)) ([a427aa5](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages@a427aa5)) * Share code between provers ([#4655](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#4655)) ([ef10d65](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages@ef10d65)) </details> <details><summary>barretenberg: 0.27.1</summary> ## [0.27.1](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages@barretenberg-v0.27.0...barretenberg-v0.27.1) (2024-03-12) ### Features * Further ClientIVC breakdown ([#5146](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#5146)) ([c8e1cb8](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages@c8e1cb8)) ### Bug Fixes * Move timers for ClientIVC breakdown ([#5145](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#5145)) ([5457edb](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages@5457edb)) ### Miscellaneous * Share code between provers ([#4655](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#4655)) ([ef10d65](AztecProtocol/aztec-packages@ef10d65)) </details> --- This PR was generated with [Release Please](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please). See [documentation](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please#release-please).

initial refactoring attempt

273c1f6

lucasxia01 self-assigned this Feb 16, 2024

lucasxia01 marked this pull request as draft February 16, 2024 21:22

lucasxia01 added 7 commits February 16, 2024 22:02

fixed build

c25d857

using shared code in ultra prover

bb163ef

commenting out headers too

a90c5de

getting build to work

a983664

fix test

ed8a2d1

split into rounds, but should fail to link

3b7f1e0

link works

fa8f3c4

lucasxia01 commented Feb 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

lucasxia01 marked this pull request as ready for review February 21, 2024 12:29

lucasxia01 requested a review from maramihali February 21, 2024 12:29

maramihali reviewed Feb 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

maramihali requested changes Feb 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

lucasxia01 added 3 commits February 26, 2024 23:04

making presumcheck prover class

2c14dbc

Merge branch 'master' into lx/provers-round-sharing

decb4f1

fix ultra honk rounds bench

35338f3

lucasxia01 commented Feb 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

codygunton self-requested a review February 27, 2024 17:14

lucasxia01 commented Feb 27, 2024

View reviewed changes

lucasxia01 added 2 commits February 27, 2024 22:21

update to naming

219d68f

Merge branch 'master' into lx/provers-round-sharing

5bf5ab9

maramihali reviewed Feb 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

added comments, removed unused function

f8d66fc

maramihali reviewed Feb 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

maramihali approved these changes Feb 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

lucasxia01 force-pushed the lx/provers-round-sharing branch 2 times, most recently from c862f96 to f8d66fc Compare March 7, 2024 19:27

lucasxia01 added 3 commits March 11, 2024 17:36

lots of merge conflict resolution

638785e

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into lx/provers-round-sharing

moved presumcheck_prover

c48aed1

renaming presumcheck to oink, other small fixes

fa2ebc9

lucasxia01 commented Mar 11, 2024

View reviewed changes

small changes to prep review

c082b25

codygunton approved these changes Mar 11, 2024

View reviewed changes

lucasxia01 added 2 commits March 11, 2024 19:56

moving member vars to top of class

9e042d3

tiny update

48e8b5a

maramihali approved these changes Mar 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

address mara comments

8cc1e6b

lucasxia01 enabled auto-merge (squash) March 12, 2024 15:59

lucasxia01 merged commit ef10d65 into master Mar 12, 2024
94 of 95 checks passed

lucasxia01 deleted the lx/provers-round-sharing branch March 12, 2024 16:18

AztecBot mentioned this pull request Mar 12, 2024

chore(master): Release 0.27.1 #5158

Merged

lucasxia01 mentioned this pull request Mar 25, 2024

refactor: the origins of the oink #5067

Closed


		namespace bb {

		template <IsUltraFlavor Flavor> class PreSumcheckProver {

refactor: share code between provers #4655

refactor: share code between provers #4655

Conversation

lucasxia01 commented Feb 16, 2024 • edited by maramihali Loading

AztecBot commented Feb 16, 2024 • edited Loading

Benchmark results

L2 block published to L1

L2 chain processing

Circuits stats

Tree insertion stats

Miscellaneous

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lucasxia01 Feb 21, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

maramihali left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

maramihali Feb 29, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

maramihali Feb 29, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

maramihali left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

codygunton left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

maramihali left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lucasxia01 commented Feb 16, 2024 •

edited by maramihali

Loading

AztecBot commented Feb 16, 2024 •

edited

Loading

lucasxia01 Feb 21, 2024 •

edited

Loading

maramihali left a comment •

edited

Loading

maramihali Feb 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading

maramihali Feb 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading